Then they are challenging in the wrong place. Automatic license plate readers are just a more efficient way of tracking what they are already tracking. They already filmed and have the same data, just would take more time to search it. They should be arguing they can’t have cameras. In gcr2016 examples, (if this was what was used), it is not that they won’t find the exact same information without license plate readers, it will just be slower. They still have the camera footage stored
2 Likes
I think they were always automatic
I can still read that. I do not know why you deleted it.
But
Where are you?
In the US in cities along often racist lines there are cameras.
But I am in suburbia, we don’t monitor out here. It is creeping in slowly.
Out in a small Cities known as Torrington, CT, they took a quiet stretch of highway and added some sort of monitoring. The claim it is the most dangerous stretch of highway in the state. It is quiet. But the cops killed a crazy man on it a few years ago. There have been a few accidents. So the rate of deaths is high.
The main thing about that stretch of highway, it is away from the politicos in Hartford. That means the politicos won’t catch themselves.
It was only partially finished before I accidentally hit enter so deleted it. I meant to get back to it later. I’m in Singapore so a lot of public surveillance, probably most of my movement in public is recorded.
3 Likes
We surveil the city poor folks.
We have some privacy de facto or culturally with some wealth.
The US was set up for the white male property owner. Encroach on him and the law is read differently.
It would be interesting if someone in Germany chimed in here. I was watching an ep of “Inspector Lewis”, several years ago. Lewis was in Germany, investigating. His first request to his German counterpart, was his universal go-to in the UK, see what CCTV had. She commented “this isn’t England, we don’t have cameras everywhere”.
Steve
I’ve read that London has the most cameras of any city in the world. In fact, I think a recent “sport” among dissenters in London is to somehow disable or destroy cameras (especially the cameras that cause congestion or other fees to be charged).
I mentioned it here a few years ago (pre-COVID I think) that I had seen a weird police vehicle with an assortment of cameras on the roof slowly driving around the Home Depot parking lot, up and down row after row. I figured out that the cameras were scanning each license plate to check if there were any warrants (or other legal issue) associated with them. It’s pretty clever and could catch stolen cars, people with warrants for their arrest, unpaid traffic fines, etc. I don’t see any constitutional issue here, the license plates are SPECIFICALLY meant to identify the vehicle in all public places in order for law enforcement to associate it with all the above things.
2 Likes
A lot of people around here back into parking spaces, and Michigan only has a plate on the rear. I suppose it is easier for them to maneuver their huge pickup into the spot with that approach, but so many of them seem to back their trucks in until they hear the truck hit something. I often notice the handicap signposts on parking spots bent over, from being hit, repeatedly, by back-in parkers.
Steve
Same here in Florida. About 10-20% back in to their spots. So that means that the scanner only gets 80-90% of the plates. Plus I suppose a few more that the cameras happen to see between the rows (the cameras were above the roofline, so I assume they can see a little more than I can). But the idea isn’t to scan every single car, it’s just to scan as many as possible to increase the odds of catching those who don’t obey they law. For example, they drove the Home Depot parking lot, the Costco parking lot, the mall parking lot, but they may not have gotten to all the nearby strip malls, so they only cover some partial percentage to begin with.
Until I began driving th RAV4, I generally backed into parking spaces, as we are required to have front & rear plates in CA,
Quote:“they gave you 3 plates, you must display both plates.” the CHP officer said, so I got a fixit ticket when I was driving the RX7, he actually spun around, chased me down on a 2 lane road! Many years ago, it was an '82 RX7, looked better without the front plate!
But my main reason was safety, I bad a couple super thumpers, backing out of a parking space, in my F150, so I’d usually back in. But the RAV4, no access to the back space if I back in. Changing times, vehicles, at least the RAV4 has 360° cameras, sensors…
Overseas traveling, always assumed there were cameras everywhere, didn’t see it as a problem…
1 Like
What I am trying to do is break small traffic laws. I do not want to pay the fees as more in taxes.
But little to do with the original post on this thread. I was out to dinner a few weeks ago with colleagues from the US that were visiting our office. One commented on that they never saw any police, which is generally true. You don’t see patrol cars too often as most tickets are mailed to you. But I don’t think the point of it is to make money as much as it is to just keep most from obeying the laws. After all, the cameras are fixed and when ever I am in a taxi, I hear their GPS announce “traffic light camera ahead”.
To your original post, I don’t see how automatic license plate scanners can be unconstitutional unless public surveillance were to be unconstitutional. Now, if they want to track Leap1’s movements and have the database provide an hourly report on where your licence plate has been spotted and face recognised, maybe that should require a warrant but I am guessing there is something about giving up the right of privacy when in public.
1 Like
American laws can be read in several ways. Step on the wrong toes and get a different reading by the courts.
It’s considered a tax system here.
Americans dont take safety that seriously
1 Like