Tiburon (Calif.) may install license plate cameras

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

... The posh and picturesque town that juts into San Francisco Bay is poised to do something unprecedented: use cameras to record the license plate number of every vehicle that crosses city limits.

... Situated on a peninsula, Tiburon's hillside homes and waterfront shops are accessible by only two roads, allowing police to point the special cameras known as license plate readers at every lane that leads into and out of the town of 8,800.

The readers, which use character recognition software, can compare plates to databases of cars that have been stolen or linked to crimes, then immediately notify police of matches, said Police Chief Michael Cronin.

... Nicole Ozer, who directs policy on technology for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, isn't as supportive. She called the cameras a "needle in a haystack" approach that may waste money, invade privacy and invite unfair profiling.

"To be under investigation simply because you entered or left Tiburon at a certain time is incredibly intrusive," Ozer said. "Innocent people should be able to go about their daily lives without being tracked and monitored."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/10/MNT6189U0U.DTL

[MajorChode]

1. I can't follow the ACLU logic on this one

I can understand the privacy issues involved, but how is it "unfair profiling" if everyone is being checked?

[montanto]

15. ACLU quote is "needle in a haystack" not

"unfair profiling."

[MajorChode]

16. It appears to be both

Nicole Ozer, who directs policy on technology for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, isn't as supportive. She called the cameras a "needle in a haystack" approach that may waste money, invade privacy and invite unfair profiling.(emphasis added)

But both approaches typically fail when challenged in court. How much privacy do you have a right to when you're on a public street? The profiling argument also fails because as long as the cameras and software are checking everyone, there is no profiling. It's not the same thing as using facial recognition software which does have the potential to profile.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a public debate on the issue and they shouldn't be highly regulated, it's just that any legal arguments against them are likely to fail.

[Dogtown]

17. They're supposing the targeting

of specific groups for traffic stops based solely on profiled characteristics.

If members of a group get stopped with extreme frequency, they'll learn to avoid the town.

[MajorChode]

18. I don't see the downside to people driving stolen cars avoiding the town

Or those with warrants.

I don't see how you can profile a license plate. The software checks all of them against a database of stolen cars or those owned by people with warrants. It's not as if it's going to check some more than others if it's checking them all.

Police do random license checks as simply part of their daily routine, and those methods are most certainly more prone to abuse and profiling. I see the camera approach as actually making the process more fair and less prone to abuse. For instance, cops in a posh town most likely check the plates of piece of shit cars or those with lots of bling more often than nice ones.

[rollingrock]

20. Your strange logic

that's like arguing that if EVERY driver that passes through Tiburon is strip-searched, then it is a perfectly fair and just thing to do.

Do you honestly think that it would be okay for them to strip-search you as long as it is done to everyone else that enters and leaves the city?

[MajorChode]

21. Do you really think extending the argument to absurdity strengthens your position?

Do you honestly think the expectation of privacy regarding what is underneath ones clothes is the same as the expectation of privacy of a state issued license plate displayed on a public street?

[rollingrock]

23. Not absurd

you are arguing that as long as if something is done to everyone, whether it be email surveillance, strip search or whatever, then it is okay to do it.

that's totalitarian logic.

[MajorChode]

24. That's not what I said so please don't pretend as much, OK?

Profiling and privacy are two different issues which I clearly differentiated.

Now you're simply writing false claims about my assertion in order to defend your absurdity.

[rollingrock]

32. Well, it's clear to me that's what you implied

whether you realize it or not.

[MajorChode]

34. I reject your inferrence

I also don't believe any reasonable person could have made your inference. Go back and read my original statement.

I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were being duplicitous. The only other explanation I can come up with is extremely deficient comprehension. If that's the one you want to go with, so be it. What I wrote was quite clear and nothing within a cab ride of what you're now claiming. I'm not going to play the game of pretending it was.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Classic monkey wrenching opportunity

Destroy the cameras, and later the cameras they set up to watch the cameras.

This kind of stuff has no place in a free society

[Fumesucker]

3. It's already happening in the UK on a regular basis..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2726571.stm

[mamaleah]

4. And why would we want to be like that.?

Cameras everywhere.....watch your ass!

[Fumesucker]

7. There are already cameras in a great number of places in the USA..

In both public and private places..

The water has not yet reached a rolling boil but it's well past the point where the frog is dead.

[MajorChode]

9. It's already happening in some areas of the US as well

Some airports are already doing this.

[Fumesucker]

13. I was speaking of the destruction of cameras..

Specifically radar triggered speeding cameras..

It's become quite common in the UK for such cameras to be sabotaged.

The most common one is a high powered air rifle to the lens, although quite a few get torched with a molotov cocktail as well.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Some Links

http://english.controleradar.org/burning-gatso.php

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

Most license plate readers are located much lower to the ground and are easier to take out. Even a box or spray paint is enough.

[madmusic]

5. Follow the money

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye">China's All-Seeing Eye

With the help of U.S. defense contractors, China is building the prototype for a high-tech police state. It is ready for export.

[Alcibiades]

6. Orwellian

They had cameras in East Germany, but they watched the Wall. This is too totalitarian for the Stazi!

[Auggie]

8. For DUers who don't know, Tiburon is an incredibly posh community

north of San Francisco in Marin County. It is surpassed only by Belvedere, which, coincidently, one must pass by these same cameras to enter.

This strikes me as very "Shock Doctrine" -- the rich get the exclusive, expensive security measures while those who want go without.

[Robb]

10. There need to be way more safeguards in place

for me to be remotely comfortable with this.

The camera data needs to be made available to investigating officers only after a valid warrant is issued by a judge, who makes the determination that the crime they're investigating (a) rises to the level where the data is necessary and (b) is likely to result in an arrest.

Even then, sketchy notion. Collecting this kind of information on citizens not accused of anything, by a government police force, is a bitter pill.

[paulsby]

37. whether or not you think the cameras are good policy

i am against them,, fwiw. you do not need a warrant , nor should you to access this data. the cars are on a public roadway. there is no expectation of privacy. i'm against this as a matter of policy (and im a cop myself fwiw), but it's clearly not unconstitutional.

[Robb]

39. No, I agree.

But I'd like to see another "level," you know? And I would think the expectation of privacy argument could be made, in that one would reasonably expect (before the cameras) not to have their license number run, because there are so many cars going by?

As I read what I wrote, it's thin. :shrug:

[paulsby]

40. there's an attorney

in my state who makes that argument every year. to the courts. his claim is that cops should have at least reasonable suspicion to "run" a license plate. the state disagrees - iow, that there is no expectation of privacy, and especially not as to attached warrants, stolen, etc. of a license plate. technology does make us more efficient. i can run far more licenses just while driving around with my car laptop than i could via radio- because radio would get tied up. i can run (easily) 20 an hour, for instance. but yes,it's true. if you are walking down the street, the cops can't "run' you. if you are a car, though, they can, realizing that this only gives them reg info, etc. the person in the car is not necessarily the owner. tiburon btw is a very liberal enclave. i PERSONALLY would not even go to a city where i knew that as soon as entered they were recording my license plate #,and i am definitely not up to criminal activity. i think it's disturbing. i just recognizeit's perfectly legal. i hate the way the UK is a total surveillance society.

[liberal N proud]

11. As long as the information isn't collected to be used for two things

Solicitation and tracking of my whereabouts, I am sure there are more potential civil rights and privacy violations here.

Other than that it could be a good way to find stolen vehicles or bolo's as the police call them.

[jberryhill]

28. That is easy to implement

Since it is querying the database on stolen cars, warrants, etc., instead of checking the general registration database, there is no reason to log the data.

They could pay a guy to stand there and do the same thing.

[liberal N proud]

30. Easy as long as someone doesn't abuse it

In the 70's they used to pay people to count the cars that passed a specific point.

But the automation of a camera where the software reads the number and runs it in a database is much faster. You could potentially alert the police that a stolen vehicle was in the area almost immediately. Not possible with human interaction.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. I love all of the "I have nothing to hide " freaks quoted in the article & replying in the comments.

I'll bet everyone of them wears clothes and has drapes on the windows.
It's about privacy and the ability to move about in a free society, you idiots.
What next, UPCs on people who walk in or who are passengers in vehicles?

[Kutjara]

14. My standard reply to the "nothing to hide" parrots:

I've got nothing to hide, either, which is why the state has no business watching me.

[Psephos]

27. a perfect rejoinder n/t

[Bankhead_ATL]

19. With what Money....IOU's???????

[FailureToCommunicate]

22. This crazy logic assumes the danger the town of 8,800 faces if from "outsiders"

[MajorChode]

26. Here's what you have to understand about these types of communities

Typically they rake in far more tax dollars than they have any need. Implementing highly visible law enforcement measures gives residents a sense of security, even if there's no real effect. It allows politicians to identify it as an accomplishment and it gets them reelected (provided most residents support the program). Many people value the feeling of security above most other things.

It's kinda like putting up a neighborhood watch sign when there's no real effort from residents to pay attention to what is going on around them.

[jclincali]

25. Tiburon... enough said. It's full of old hippies turned nazis.

[Brother Buzz]

29. A lot of towns are doing it using portable equipment supplied from Homeland security funds.

Cameras are mounted on parking enforcement vehicles (golf carts?) and cruise the commercial streets. Even privately owned shopping malls are being patrolled in the same fashion with homeland security grant money.

Security cameras have been installed at the Arden Fair Mall in Sacramento to monitor vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot. Using a Department of Homeland Security grant, the mall has equipped two patrol vehicles with roof-mounted cameras to patrol the mall’s 5,500 parking spaces, enabling law enforcement to scan license plates and find stolen cars or vehicles belonging to suspects with felony warrants. The instantaneous data link between the mall and Sacramento Police will be in place by late January. Authorities hope to reduce criminal activity in the mall itself by increasing security in the lot. Similar systems are already in use at the Sacramento International Airport.

[Hepburn]

31. Say hello to Big Brother....

...:puke:

[Duer 157099]

33. It is about slippery slopes

While the arguments pro/con this particular implementation have their merits, the more important factor is how this serves the slippery slope principle.

It's like with the warrantless wiretapping -- once all that data is stored away somewhere (which it is) all sorts of new questions arise, such as how secure is the data, how many copies are there, who has access, and for how long will they be secure (if they are). There are so many possibilities for how the data can be abused, it boggles the mind.

Same applies here. Once you get people accustomed to the notion of "spy cameras" (for law enforcement, of course) then the new applications creep in. And they will.

[damntexdem]

35. Oh, no, how can they? The sharks!

When I lived in the Bay Area, I loved going out to Tiburon: good eating places, and a ferry to Angel Island.

But now they want to jump the shark and undertake intrusive surveillance.

Bad, bad Shark Town!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

38. They won't last long.

Tom from Tib lives there. :evilgrin: