Think Democrats support privacy? Think again!

[tailfins]

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/debate-over-license-plate-readers-grows-in-maryland/

The ACLU demands privacy and is summarily ignored by the people they help elect: SUCKERS!
(http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/debate-over-license-plate-readers-grows-in-maryland/)

[Thunderknuckles]

It's all in the name of security. Whatever they can do to keep Americans safe trumps anything stated in the Constitution.

[Marcus Aurelius]

According to the OP article...


“So if someone is looking for a particular vehicle in reference to a robbery or murder or something like that, we can put that tag number into the system and it will hit if the vehicle happens to drive by,”

Why is this for of looking for a car an invasion of privacy, while standing on a street corner physically looking isn't? It's simply technology being used effectively by law enforcement to reduce the amount of time it takes to find a suspect. I see no invasion of privacy.

Now, if they went behind a fence on private property, or opened a garage door, or even shot through a window in a garage door in order to scan the plates, then I'd have a privacy issue. But simply scanning a car as it goes by and cross checking the plate number against wants/warrants? That's just effective use of resources to me.

[tailfins]

According to the OP article...



Why is this for of looking for a car an invasion of privacy, while standing on a street corner physically looking isn't? It's simply technology being used effectively by law enforcement to reduce the amount of time it takes to find a suspect. I see no invasion of privacy.

Now, if they went behind a fence on private property, or opened a garage door, or even shot through a window in a garage door in order to scan the plates, then I'd have a privacy issue. But simply scanning a car as it goes by and cross checking the plate number against wants/warrants? That's just effective use of resources to me.

There's more to it than that. It's tracking the movement of ordinary people who have done nothing wrong.


More than 320 LPRs are in use across Maryland. Information about every scanned license plate–even non-criminal–is stored at the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center.

[Marcus Aurelius]

There's more to it than that. It's tracking the movement of ordinary people who have done nothing wrong.


More than 320 LPRs are in use across Maryland. Information about every scanned license plate–even non-criminal–is stored at the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center. That concerns the ACLU.

“As the data increases over time you get a more detailed picture of Marylanders’ movements. And that is information the government has no business knowing, absent some particular law enforcement need,” said David Rocah, ACLU.



Do we know specifically what information is stored? For how long? Who has access? Until there is more information on that, I'm not really sure what there is to get all worked up about.

[aboutime]

It's all in the name of security. Whatever they can do to keep Americans safe trumps anything stated in the Constitution.


<dl style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;"><dt>Benjamin Franklin (sometimes Thomas Jefferson) is often quoted (http://kevincraig.us/tempsec.htm#History) as saying:</dt></dl>
<center>
<tbody>

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

</tbody>
</center>
What is the opposite of "LIBERTY?" The answer is: SLAVERY.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here's a piece that explains what the ACLU wants in this...
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-07-30/news/bs-md-aclu-license-reader-20120730_1_license-plate-readers-police-agencies-state-police


On Monday, the ACLU of Maryland asked dozens of local and state police agencies to more fully explain the extent of their use of the readers and how the information they gather is used, shared and stored, said David Rocah, a staff attorney for the organization.

"I think the privacy implications are huge, and there has been virtually zero public discussion," Rocah said.
The ACLU's national office and affiliates in 35 states made similar requests Monday.
"The American people have a right to know whether our police departments are using these tools in a limited and responsible manner, or whether they are keeping records of our movements for months or years for no good reason," Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney, said in a statement.


Until we do have answers, I'll give the law enforcement people the benefit of the doubt.

Here's one answer anyway...


Data is also kept in the center's repository for only one year, unless it is involved in an active police investigation, Eisenberg said.

[aboutime]

Here's a piece that explains what the ACLU wants in this...
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-07-30/news/bs-md-aclu-license-reader-20120730_1_license-plate-readers-police-agencies-state-police



Until we do have answers, I'll give the law enforcement people the benefit of the doubt.

Here's one answer anyway...



There is another realistic way to look at this, which many seem to have ignored, or forgotten.

Every U.S. State, and the U.S. Government issues a License Number to every person in the United States who DRIVES on the streets, roads, and highways of this nation.

In other words. They have all been aware of, and known the names, addresses, and much personal information about Americans from the very first day that FIRST License was issued.

In defense of this License plate reading technology that has been around for a very long time.
Some Americans have purchased a special License Plate covering that prevents camera's from reading their license...IN CASE THEY INTENTIONALLY BREAK THE LAW.

What's the problem?

[tailfins]

Here's a piece that explains what the ACLU wants in this...
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-07-30/news/bs-md-aclu-license-reader-20120730_1_license-plate-readers-police-agencies-state-police



Until we do have answers, I'll give the law enforcement people the benefit of the doubt.

Here's one answer anyway...

You darn well had better give them the benefit of the doubt if you don't want tazed!

I don't give the police the benefit of any doubt. The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts is a model for how police should be managed: A powerful elected citizen's review board with the power to fire any police officer at any time. A cop that knows he could be fired tomorrow (if only they could be jailed to boot) remembers that he is a public servant.

[fj1200]

There's more to it than that. It's tracking the movement of ordinary people who have done nothing wrong.

As Marcus said there is no expectation of privacy so at that point I think it's up to the people, state legislature, to put limits on the data and its uses.

[logroller]

There's more to it than that. It's tracking the movement of ordinary people who have done nothing wrong.
Nothing to fear then. I'd rather have my picture taken then be stopped at a checkpoint. Its been said but bears repeating, there's no expectation of privacy in public. If you think about it, privacy is private, ie not in public view. So anyone can sit on a street corner and film/ photograph cars driving by-- its protected by the first amendment. Not to say that information gathered publicly could not be used illegally, (for example, blackmailing/extorting them with evidence of an affair), but merely tracking someone's public travels is not illegal.