The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I know that there has been a discussion of plate scanners on the turnpikes recently to "look" for people that are driving uninsured as the thread went. And there has been a discussion as to police using them at intersections to look for "stolen tags or vehicles", and repo trucks have them to locate cars to be reposessed. Well this community is now trolling parking lots at malls with this technology. I am not a "Big Brother" person in my thinking, and if my car were stolen, and they found it with this technology I would thank them. But it is not perfect. It might hit on a plate for a stolen car tag in AZ, but the numbers and the plate on the car are from Arkansas. And they believe that it may find potential criminals before they act.

"The readers are not only capable of tracking stolen vehicles and plates, but vehicles associated in Amber Alerts, people wanted on outstanding warrants and potential crime suspects." According to Gilbert police Officer Mike Berguetski.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2010/09/14/20100914gilbert-police-license-plate-cameras.html (http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2010/09/14/20100914gilbert-police-license-plate-cameras.html)

I know I'm just pleased as punch by the government knowing my comings and goings. Anything to keep us safer!

This post is just Patric-bait...


 ;D

Well, it could prove you didn't commit a crime.

That'll be the day..

I have a sneaking suspicion that any such records would not be disclosed if it were conceivable that it might make a criminal case harder to prosecute.

The Brits have been really on top of this, from Wiki:

"Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR; see also other names below) is a mass surveillance method that uses optical character recognition on images to read the license plates on vehicles. They can use existing closed-circuit television or road-rule enforcement cameras, or ones specifically designed for the task. They are used by various police forces and as a method of electronic toll collection on pay-per-use roads and cataloging the movements of traffic or individuals."

"Perhaps the best known incident involving the abuse of an ANPR database in North America is the case of Edmonton Sun reporter Kerry Diotte in 2004.
Diotte wrote an article critical of Edmonton police use of traffic cameras for revenue enhancement, and in retaliation was added to an ANPR database of "high-risk drivers" in an attempt to monitor his habits and create an opportunity to arrest him. [42] [43]
The police chief and several officers were fired as a result, and The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada expressed public concern over the "growing police use of technology to spy on motorists." [44]
Other concerns include the storage of information that could be used to identify people and store details about their driving habits and daily life, contravening the Data Protection Act along with similar legislation (see personally identifiable information). The laws in the UK are strict for any system that uses CCTV footage and can identify individuals.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]
Also of concern is the safety of the data once it is mined, following the discovery of police surveillance records lost in a gutter. [54] [55]"

patric, I can't believe that you don't think that troublemakers like Diotte deserve to be tracked to within a millimeter and constantly under surveillance in an attempt to discredit them. Freedom ain't free, you know! :o

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/features/police/


The technology has tremendous potential for good, but even more for abuse.   How well it serves the public good depends on how well we enforce limits on it's use.  Right now, it's wide open.

For example, I supported Tasers (in their day) because they had the potential to lessen deaths and injuries as an alternative to the use of lethal force.
As time went on and they started becoming widely used, their use shifted dramatically from their stated purpose, and the policies governing them were either kept secret, or simply non-existent.  We shouldnt repeat that mistake.

That wont keep me from applauding if it plays a positive role in an Amber Alert someday, but I suspect that will be an exception rather than a rule.  Motorists on the road have little or no expectation of privacy as is, but technology hasnt been in place to really exploit that and push constitutional limits until now.

I see that TCSO is now testing plate scanners and plan on buying two units to use.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13265926 (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13265926)


Interesting question. In the article I originally posted it said the cost of the equipment was $49,000.00 and in the News On 6 story they are reported at $19,000.00. Did Gilbert get robbed or is TCSO shopping Walmart?

"yay"

Remind me to back into parking spaces.  :P

"They" will just make us put plates on the front of the car too.  Don't do it.

OK, LEDs don't use much energy, so perhaps I'll wire up 6 or 8 IR LEDs around my plate to blind the camera. ;)

I don't like the idea of being so easily tracked, just on principle. Somehow I'm OK with it if they want to send an officer out to follow people around, but when it gets to automatically figuring out where people's cars are and dumping that into a database, I'm not so ambivalent.

$5.00 says you do that, and the first time they try to scan your plate while you're driving, and they will cite you for an improper tag display. Arizona passed a law that if you have a licsense plate frame and it covers the top portion that displays the state name, it is illegal and you can be stopped for it.

yeah, the light up plate frames are technically already illegal if they make the plate hard to read.

I still question the validity of doing this.  Most every tag that has a tag frame already covers up the barcode.  If they're using optical readers, it's really not all that difficult to trick them.

They'd have a hard time winning if the entirety of the plate was clearly visible to the human eye, absent an addition to the law specifically barring interfering with machine-reading of the plate. It would only cause problems with cameras without an IR filter, which I presume law enforcement would use unless they didn't care about being able to use the machines at night.

Additional lights are against the law. The dictionary definition of "light" includes electromagnetic radiation capable of causing visual stimulus.

Edited to add: If the barcode has letters and numbers associated with it, it is illegal to cover it up:

hey, the bar code is letters and numbers, just not in a form that you reconize :D

I really like the tags that have FOP "badges" covering part of the tag.

Not like any cop would bother running a tag after seeing it anyhow

Are they running the numbers or the little bar code on the sticker ? lol
Just curious how far they are going to go with this.

The little bar codes are just for inventory.  The Automatic License Plate Recognition surveillance cameras actually look at the letters and numbers on the plate, and use character recognition to compare the scanned tag number to those downloaded into it's memory.  We all had to get new tags last year to be compatible with this.
The MPH-900 scanners ELSAG loaned to the Sheriff have a faint red flicker at night from the infrared emitters, looking like something out of War of the Worlds. 
Gonna scare little kids with that one...

Speaking of tracking:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/all/1

I think the less surveillance on the people the better. The ones that should have surveillance on them are those in office