Gothamist: NYCLU Says License Plate Scanners Too Invasive

ironybubble

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:20:37 -0500

By the way, this is actually the infrastructure for congestion pricing in disguise.

NannyState

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:04:14 -0500

Memo to NYCLUeless: the cameras are not "too invasive", they are too stupid.

Snoopy

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:29:50 -0500

Can one just imagine what Kelly would do with tax dollars if elected mayor?

dadoc

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:05:00 -0500

As I stated in the previous thread: a poorly disguised use of Federal (aka our Fed Tax Dollars) "AntiTerrorism" funds that needed to be spent on something or lost. NYPD can't hire anyone 'cuz the organization & pay suck. Put up "AntiTerrorism" cameras to catch "terrorists" based on their license plates (yeah, That'll show 'em!) Oh, gee these cameras can be used to generate local revenue on the Feds' (Us) tab! Pay no attention to the privacy, just follow the money.

arsguide

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:31:18 -0500

to the person who said 'Here we are talking about a government in which we do have a voice' hahahahahahahahahha

buzardb8

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:25:01 -0500

Just what we need, more insecurity cameras. Amerika will only wake up to the sound of the lock closing on the shackles of fascism.

Snoopy

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:09:10 -0500

How are they going to know a terrorist is driving a certain vehicle? These are after the fact devices and will not deter any attack. Like a suicide terrorist will give a shit if he's photographed? Also Ben Franklin never drove a car so he wasn't talking about the same thing. I'm not sure of his wife Deborah, she might have driven.

Toby von Meistersinger

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:07:20 -0500

Looks like another victory for the terrorists.

kapusta

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:55:34 -0500

"we have met the enemy and he is us" these intelligence gathering devices of the Fascist Security Forces(aka NY's Finest) will discover what we are guilty of and we will be punished. we are guilty until proven guilty.

drchadwick1

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:40:14 -0500

It also seems likely that, at some point, the police will think, "Hey, we have all the cameras around... why not put them to good use?" Exactly. It's called "mission creep". First they're tightening security for terrorists so they put in the means to watch everyone. Then they decide that, say, public assembly is illegal and then, conveniently, they've already got the means to stop it. Take a look at the NYPD's abuses during the RNC -- they infiltrated and spied on protest groups, and now they've placed onerous restrictions ("parade rules") on the right of people to assemble in the city. You trust them to keep these cameras turned only toward "the terrorists"? Yeah, right.

Jen S

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:32:34 -0500

I'm all for monitoring traffic for security reasons, but once they start fining for speeding by using this technology to track car pace, count me out.

eyekantspel

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:30:24 -0500

I agree that monitoring license plates seems unlikely to stop or deter a terrorist attack. Since the supposed purpose for this system is related to counter-terrorism, I'm not sure that this system accomplishes the stated goal. It also seems likely that, at some point, the police will think, "Hey, we have all the cameras around... why not put them to good use?" The images will be used for all sorts of purposes. Some legitimate law enforcement ones--Finding and tracking suspected criminals. Maybe some inappropriate ones, since it's only human. Not a stretch to think some techie at the controls might use it to track a celebrity he or she is curious about, or maybe see what a spouse is up to. This concerns me. That said, I still think there is a difference between monitoring public activity and a restriction on liberty in the way Franklin was talking about. After 9/11, doing nothing would be a mistake. We should be doing something to anticipate and thwart potential threats. The problem is determining what measures are appropriate. At some level, I'm sure the same kind of monitoring already takes place. There are already red-light cameras. Law enforcement can already triangulate your position using cellphone signals. EZ pass system can already monitor your comings and goings. Phones can be tapped, calls can be traced, your phone records can be discovered, emails and internet access are saved and can be monitored. The proposed system really is no more invasive than the one which many seemed to favor for the congestion pricing scheme. Is this plan too much? I don't have an answer, and can see both sides of the argument. But I still circle back to my original feeling -- it seems to me that this is unlikely to deter or prevent an act of terrorism; at best it might help an after-the-fact investigation.

Seth Mulvey

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:11:51 -0500

this is not a sacrifice of liberty.

drchadwick1

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:11:47 -0500

Would this have caught the Ryder truck that contained the payload of the first WTC bombing? Doubtful. Terrorists aren't going around registering and using their own cars.

rdc

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:52:30 -0500

The government tracking your movements in and out of the city is an invasion of privacy. It's beyond the pale to accept being tracked like an animal by your own government for "safety". You're not any safer with the police keeping tabs on your movements.

drewo

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:45:09 -0500

It seems that everything and everyone who can profit somehow from the destruction and (never ending/never beginning) rebuilding of the WTC site has come out of the woodwork. From developers to contractors to workers, who may or may not have gotten ill around 9/11, to the NYPD that now wants to jump on that fear-fueled cash cow. While the rest of us grow old and gray waiting for something to be built on the WTC site, the demand for commercial office space in Manhattan is declining. See this recent article in the NY Sun: Commercial Rental Rates Plummet in Manhattan http://www.nysun.com/business/commercial-rental-rates-plummet-in-manhattan/83300/ When they finally cut the ribbon on whatever eventually gets built downtown, there may be little demand for expensive Manhattan office space - and little need for overkill NYPD security.

JacqueMehoff

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:44:56 -0500

as long as cops allow themselves to be photographed then it's even. they don't even want their license plate photographed. what are they afraid of?

pazzia

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:37:17 -0500

agreed. license plates exist for the sole purpose of identification.

jt10000

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:35:45 -0500

The framers of the constitution never conceived of machines taking the place of people. There is a huge difference between one British solider or policeman or whoever per thousand people and automated technology that enables persistent surveillance. Our understand of privacy has to take into account advances in technology and it's obvious that recording the movements of all citizens is technologically possible. Privacy exists along a continuum, and it's cannot be the case that because someone steps outside they lose it completely. Someday it will be possible to video tape and record everything everyone ever does in our country when they are outside. Does the fact that someone is outside make that OK? I'm terrified and depressed that too many of the sheeple here and in the US in general seem to accept arguments that that's OK becasue we are "fighting terror" or "protecting children" or in a "war on drugs" or whatever the rationale of the moment is.

FrankMartin

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:22:38 -0500

iracecars, you are paraphrasing Franklin. I believe he actually wrote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The word "essential" is key to his thought. You have no right to privacy in public places and neither does your car. Never mind that owning and driving a car isn't a right, or an "essential liberty", but a privilege. Now I won't challenge that it sounds like a huge waste of money and effort. I say use them to go after bad/ dangerous drivers. People have asked for a cop on every corner, isn't this the technical equivalent?

eyekantspel

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:12:40 -0500

iracecars, that's paraphrasing. I think the actual Ben Franklin quote is: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Also, in context, I believe Franklin's comment was meant to inspire the colonies to rise up and fight against the British government that ruled them, to fight instead of accepting living under a government in which they had no voice. Here we are talking about a government in which we do have a voice monitoring automobile movement, presumably to thwart a terrorist attack. It's a different set of circumstances, and having the cops trace your plates would probably not be considered "giving up an essential liberty." I have reservations about how effective this monitoring will be, and think the merits and costs should be debated. I personally doubt that this system would have any deterrent effect on a terrorist attack. But I don't think the quote applies or necessarily indicates what Ben Franklin's views on the matter might be.

iracecars

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:49:47 -0500

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." - Benjamin Franklin

Billiamsburg

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:33:24 -0500

How is it an invasion of privacy? isn't that the purpose of license plates? So police can access their information? And I don't think there is any expectation of privacy to be had when driving around. It's not like they are making you show a passport or fill out a medical questionnaire.

djwerdna

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:33:11 -0500

I think Wall Street is still below Canal Street... As for the Don Knotts comment, if I recall, Mr. Furley had a mean karate chop...

nicemarmot

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:30:16 -0500

Below Canal Street? It really sucks when your basic idiot terrorist is smarter than the police. Hello, no real value below Canal Street nowadays; the terrorists will almost certainly go after midtown. Ugh. I really do understand why the rest of the world hates us.