| | |
|
UdiKarklinskyFirstPaper 4 - 03 Mar 2015 - Main.AndrewChung
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Minor League Snoops | >
> | Minor League Snoops | | | The spying of the federal government on American citizens is well documented. The revelations of Edward Snowden have filled news archives with articles detailing the snooping of the United States government. This accepted and understood. To what extent though does an individual have to anticipate surveillance at a more local level? Is there a difference in the ability of local governments versus the federal government to spy on citizens and should one be more acceptable than the other? | |
<
< | The Dragnet | >
> | The Dragnet | | | Earlier this year, it was revealed that police in Oakland California were employing Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) to track license plates. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which analyzed the data, found that as few as two patrol cars equipped with ALPRs were responsible for collecting 63,272 data points. On average, the EFF found that individual plates were recorded on average 1.3 times. With the sheer amount of plates being collected, it seems safe to say that this is not a targeted approach. The movements of individuals are being tracked with little regard for reasonable suspicion and for the sole sake of data collection. | |
<
< | The Technology
According to the ACLU, ALPR technology consists of high-speed cameras which capture license plates and then add and compare them to a growing database of previously recorded plates. The cameras may also more than just license plates, and sometimes record vehicle occupants and location. Oakland is not the only city to employ the technology, but they are among the most willing to divulge their use of the collected data. Police in Los Angeles have been reticent to be completely open regarding their use of ALPRs. A district court in San Diego ruled last year that the collection of license plate data did not constitute public information and that the holders of the information were not required to turn it over. The judge cited concerns that criminals could use the information to locate the ALPR cameras or areas of police investigation. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | The Technology
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ALPR technology consists of high-speed cameras that capture license plates and then add and compare them to a growing database of previously recorded plates. The cameras may also more than just license plates, and sometimes record vehicle occupants and location. Oakland is not the only city to employ the technology, but they are among the most willing to divulge their use of the collected data. Police in Los Angeles have been reticent to be completely open regarding their use of ALPRs. A district court in San Diego ruled last year that the collection of license plate data did not constitute public information and that the holders of the information were not required to turn it over. The judge cited concerns that criminals could use the information to locate the ALPR cameras or areas of police investigation.
How is it Different?
Americans are accustomed to submitting to various forms of surveillance without a second thought. Many Americans have accepted that a camera may photograph them if they run a red light and security cameras are now just a fact of life. What can be said though, is that for the most part, these forms of surveillance are used only after the fact. Traffic violators are snapped only after they have run a red light and security footage is often used to identify criminals after they have committed a crime. On the other hand, ALPRs are used to actively create a database of not only who is on the road, but also where they are going.
Facial Recognition
The use of facial recognition technology further complicates the matter. It is not far fetched to imagine government authorities coupling ALPR technology with face recognition software to more precisely identify their targets. While it has always been hinted that license plates were not always the target of ALPRs, a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) revealed that in some cases, “Occupant photos are not an occasional, accidental byproduct of the technology, but one that is intentionally being cultivated.” In fact this pairing makes so much sense that some APLR manufacturers are already looking to incorporate facial recognition technology into their new models. This allows law enforcement to attach a current visual profile to the already large amount of information they are able to gather about an individual just from their automobile data. While there is some "research" going towards thwarting facial recognition software, it seems likely that the average driver will generally be defenseless against the tracking of ALPR cameras.
Just Don't be a Criminal
The much touted mantra of those that would have us accept government surveillance is that if we're doing nothing wrong, we have nothing to worry about. But even if this is assumed to be true, the specter of human error looms large. With courts deciding that citizens no right to know specifically what sort of data is being kept in databases
Data Privacy
Sharing |
|
|
UdiKarklinskyFirstPaper 3 - 03 Mar 2015 - Main.AndrewChung
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
"Exceptions" to First Amendment | >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Minor League Snoops
The spying of the federal government on American citizens is well documented. The revelations of Edward Snowden have filled news archives with articles detailing the snooping of the United States government. This accepted and understood. To what extent though does an individual have to anticipate surveillance at a more local level? Is there a difference in the ability of local governments versus the federal government to spy on citizens and should one be more acceptable than the other? | | | | |
>
> | The Dragnet
Earlier this year, it was revealed that police in Oakland California were employing Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) to track license plates. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which analyzed the data, found that as few as two patrol cars equipped with ALPRs were responsible for collecting 63,272 data points. On average, the EFF found that individual plates were recorded on average 1.3 times. With the sheer amount of plates being collected, it seems safe to say that this is not a targeted approach. The movements of individuals are being tracked with little regard for reasonable suspicion and for the sole sake of data collection. | | | | |
<
< | - viewed as separate rights of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition as opposed to a general freedom against an anti-totalitarian regime
- What is the fear in looking at it holistically?
- Parent/child
- "Perverts"
- Terrorists
- General crime? -
-> Is this what we are coming towards? Other three have been generally accepted reasons to surveil -- but Minority Report type situation is when people are astounded and offended -- because then they become potential targets. | >
> | The Technology
According to the ACLU, ALPR technology consists of high-speed cameras which capture license plates and then add and compare them to a growing database of previously recorded plates. The cameras may also more than just license plates, and sometimes record vehicle occupants and location. Oakland is not the only city to employ the technology, but they are among the most willing to divulge their use of the collected data. Police in Los Angeles have been reticent to be completely open regarding their use of ALPRs. A district court in San Diego ruled last year that the collection of license plate data did not constitute public information and that the holders of the information were not required to turn it over. The judge cited concerns that criminals could use the information to locate the ALPR cameras or areas of police investigation. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
UdiKarklinskyFirstPaper 2 - 28 Feb 2015 - Main.LeylaHadi
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | "Exceptions" to First Amendment | | | | |
>
> |
- viewed as separate rights of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition as opposed to a general freedom against an anti-totalitarian regime
- What is the fear in looking at it holistically?
- Parent/child
- "Perverts"
- Terrorists
- General crime? -
-> Is this what we are coming towards? Other three have been generally accepted reasons to surveil -- but Minority Report type situation is when people are astounded and offended -- because then they become potential targets. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |