Private license plate readers proliferate everywhere

turkeydance

turkeydance

Well-Known Member
Life Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Messages
4,508
Location
nc
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
quote:
"....the country’s hottest new security tools: license plate readers built to scan the tag on every passing vehicle for later inspection by homeowners and police."

well, how about Tryon, NC?

www.tryondailybulletin.com

Cameras installed - The Tryon Daily Bulletin

POLK COUNTY—The Polk County Sheriff’s Office and Tryon Police Department have partnered with a company to install security cameras throughout the county.
www.tryondailybulletin.com

according to the company, Flock Safety, the cameras are accurate in all weather, at all times, and regardless of vehicle speed.
 
Last edited:
Having plate readers all over and storing the info is akin to having a tracking device on a vehicle. They’ll have the info and could effectively map out a vehicle’s whereabouts.

I thought I recalled a high level court case about something very similar and ruling that the gov couldn’t do it… or maybe I was day dreaming. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
don't worry, just because they CAN do it doesn't mean they're really looking for anything. i'm sure all laws and procedures will be followed when they feel like tracking somebody
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Having plate readers all over and storing the info is akin to having a tracking device on a vehicle. They’ll have the info and could effectively map out a vehicle’s whereabouts.

I thought I recalled a high level court case about something very similar and ruling that the gov couldn’t do it… or maybe I was day dreaming. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Not sure if they use plate readers or not but they’ve done similar tracking up and down 95 for years.
 
hp468 said:
Not sure if they use plate readers or not but they’ve done similar tracking up and down 95 for years.
Click to expand...
I can see having cameras, after all it’s in public, plain view, no expectation of privacy etc, but I believe when you begin tracking individuals via a unique identifier and put that in a database, that’s an issue.
 
Last edited:
Jerzsubbie said:
I can see having cameras, after all it’s in public, plain view, no expectation of privacy etc, but I believe when you begin tracking individuals via a unique identifier and put that in a database, that’s an issue.
Click to expand...
No argument there at all, I agree 100%. Just saying they’ve been doing that tracking vehicles up 95 for years. When you see a deputy parked in the median of the interstate, he ain’t running radar... not here anyway.
 
The flock system has solved tons of cases in my area. I'm not super knowledgeable on the system. I do know if there are outstanding warrants it alerts and can associate plates with times.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Having plate readers all over and storing the info is akin to having a tracking device on a vehicle. They’ll have the info and could effectively map out a vehicle’s whereabouts.

I thought I recalled a high level court case about something very similar and ruling that the gov couldn’t do it… or maybe I was day dreaming. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
But if private companies/individuals want to have cameras set up.... that's not government. We've seen in the past that the feeds from camera doorbells are provided to govt when requested, I don't see this being any different.

I've said for a while - just look at what's happening in Europe and you'll see it here a while later. You can't go anywhere in most EU countries without being tracked on camera.
 
OutLore said:
But if private companies/individuals want to have cameras set up.... that's not government. We've seen in the past that the feeds from camera doorbells are provided to govt when requested, I don't see this being any different.

I've said for a while - just look at what's happening in Europe and you'll see it here a while later. You can't go anywhere in most EU countries without being tracked on camera.
Click to expand...
Yes but this example isn’t private companies/individuals. I’d argue the title is inaccurate. This is the SO (gov) partnering with a company (private) who installs the cameras in state rights of way (gov). Surely the SO is paying the company something for this service. The company isn’t just buying/installing cameras and capturing/sharing the info for free.
The article does say that the company owns the cameras but these days that model is pretty normal.
 
I'd bet the company that owns the camera gets commission on something. A piece of assets seized. A percentage of fines. Something to make it worth their while.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Yes but this example isn’t private companies/individuals. I’d argue the title is inaccurate. This is the SO (gov) partnering with a company (private) who installs the cameras in state rights of way (gov). Surely the SO is paying the company something for this service. The company isn’t just buying/installing cameras and capturing/sharing the info for free.
The article does say that the company owns the cameras but these days that model is pretty normal.
Click to expand...

Timfoilhat said:
he company that owns the camera gets commission on something. A piece of assets seized. A percentage of fines. Something to make it worth their while.
Click to expand...
Yup that would be my guess too. Technically they are not "putting up cameras" but buying information or paying for a service from a private company.
 
If the government wasn't buying the product the contractor would be out of business. Same crap as the red light cameras.
 
Last edited:
hp468 said:
And we thought “Person of Interest” was a fictional tv show...
Click to expand...
We used to love that show. About that time, we heard that in NYC, there is almost nowhere you can stand and not have 4-5 cameras on you. Which is why we are seeing so much imagery of street attacks. Everybody is on camera.
 
OutLore said:
But if private companies/individuals want to have cameras set up.... that's not government.
Click to expand...
It has always amazed me the abuse people will tolerate as being OK, as long as they think it’s “private” and not the gubmint. I am old enough to remember the discussions of internet spying on the part of entities like Google being in their infancy.
 
If it's like everything else that the government has its fingers into. Rest assured the system doesn't work half the time, they don't have the staff to interpret the data, and most of the information is lost. In our small town the sheriff put up cameras and closed the little one room "police station". We've had a few crimes, mostly drug related and vehicles broken into and I thought that they were sure to have it all recorded. Nope. The cameras rarely ever work. I still find it amazing that so many people worry and fret over government. Unless you tell them what you are doing (mostly through forms you happily fill out and give them) they haven't a clue what you or anyone else is doing. Any information the government has on you is what you gave them.
 
EVERY person who mocks the danger of the state because it is stupid, bungling, inefficient, corrupt, and rotten (it is certainly all these things and more!!!) should be forced to sit and watch this film.....continuously on a loop.... for at least 7 days straight.

www.imdb.com

The Lives of Others (2006) ⭐ 8.4 | Drama, Mystery, Thriller

2h 17m | R
www.imdb.com www.imdb.com
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
It has always amazed me the abuse people will tolerate as being OK, as long as they think it’s “private” and not the gubmint. I am old enough to remember the discussions of internet spying on the part of entities like Google being in their infancy.
Click to expand...
i didn't say i approve of it or tolerate it. but if somebody wants to put cameras up on their own private property, i'm not going to tell them they can't unless it impedes my ability to walk around without pants
 
DrScaryGuy said:
i didn't say i approve of it or tolerate it. but if somebody wants to put cameras up on their own private property, i'm not going to tell them they can't unless it impedes my ability to walk around without pants
Click to expand...
But that’s not what is happening here. One might even argue, though the privacy advocates also have valid arguments, that putting a camera capturing a public right of way (road) is legitimate. What they’re doing goes beyond that:

Piped into a neighborhood’s private Flock database, the photos are made available for the homeowners to search, filter or peruse. Machine-learning software categorizes each vehicle based on two dozen attributes, including its color, make and model; what state its plates came from; and whether it had bumper stickers or a roof rack. Each “vehicle fingerprint” is pinpointed on a map and tracked by how often it had been spotted in the past month. The plates are also run against law enforcement watch lists for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives; if there’s a match, the system alerts the nearest police force with details on how to track it down.
Click to expand...
To me, that is a violation. It also leads to very dark places when you give “law enforcement“ back door access to things it wouldn’t have front door access to.
 
noway2 said:
Is that anything like making the head of a decapitated Kathy Bates watch Roots?

Click to expand...

I guess I was mistaken. When you think of the tens of thousands of government employees living and getting paid by the government to enforce their every whim and hiding behind the uniform of military service it is a bit unnerving. Ft Bragg, Camp Lejuene, Seymour Johnson. Thousands of government workers training every day to kill whomever their masters tell them too. o_O



And here I was thinking of a few government cameras run by bureaucrats.:rolleyes:
 
Make no mistake this system is used by more than just the police agencies. They got it in place using the access to police departments but I would bet that's were they get only a small fraction of their money. The big money would be from selling the information to banks and repo companies.
 
Cowboy said:
Make no mistake this system is used by more than just the police agencies. They got it in place using the access to police departments but I would bet that's were they get only a small fraction of their money. The big money would be from selling the information to banks and repo companies.
Click to expand...
I imagine the marketing value of that information is immense.
 
Does anyone know if there is a website or database available to lookup where the cameras are or what agencies have them up?

I heard that Greensboro is putting them up.
 
hp468 said:
Not sure if they use plate readers or not but they’ve done similar tracking up and down 95 for years.
Click to expand...

Thats why this was a inside job.

abc11.com

FBI reveals details of $4.8M North Carolina gold truck robbery

The FBI has revealed how thieves made off with gold bars worth $4.8 million in a truck robbery on Interstate 95 last year, and it reads like a heist fit for Hollywood. Agents say the armed robbers painstakingly prepared for the job, using high-tech gizmos including a GPS tracker and a...
abc11.com abc11.com
 
regarding license plate covers.....

"In North Carolina, it’s actually illegal to cover any part of your plate, even the state name or "first in flight" lettering."

www.wcnc.com

Drivers are doing this to avoid paying tolls on I-77. Is it legal?

It's a way to avoid tickets and not pay tolls by making their license plate virtually invisible.
www.wcnc.com www.wcnc.com
 
Walkabout Dan said:
Tracking someone like this takes a court order so it is SCOTUS that will rule on its use in the end.
Click to expand...

You bring up an interesting argument. SCOTUS has made the ruling about conducting surveillance on an individual in public, but I think this technology is completely different than the techniques used back then. I’m in law enforcement and I don’t agree with this technology being used without the court’s knowledge and approval. And the court’s approval should require a strict and high degree of scrutiny of the information provided. Honestly I will go as far to say it should require a panel of judges and their decision should be unanimous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Average Joe said:
SCOTUS has made the ruling about conducting surveillance on an individual in public, but I think this technology is completely different than the techniques used back then
Click to expand...
The technology has certainly changed and one can make all sorts of twisted arguments about plates and public roads, etc., but the thing to do is think of it through the eyes of the found fathers when they wrote the 4th amendment. What would be their position on the inherent right to privacy and this type of surveillance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom