https://maps.app.goo.gl/bGcDQ8v8YhvN3f1q7
Here is one in a construction barrel
This article explains there was a 2016 law where California won't share local police plate reader data with the feds, so they made a deal in 2024 where Caltrans (dept of transportation) will let Border Patrol pay for it themselves on roads near border crossing like San Diego County.
Glad to see they dug out the most intelligent person to react to this information. It's also incredibly funny because the opposite should also apply to the government; if they're not doing anything illegal then they should have no need to hide their local surveillance network inside of abandoned trailers or other items. Just another reason to toss on the pile for dismantling CBP.
I wonder if Mr Stanks has curtains on his windows… After all, if you’ve got nothing to hide…
And..?
Mr Stanks curtains isn't the greatest argument or observation here.
The data is kept for 12 months. So basically if you get onto the police radar for whatever reason they can roughly see how you used your car, and others they know you had access to, in the last 12 months (just saying, hum, hum).
[1] https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-...
1) If your car is stolen, suddenly none of this capability exists, or is inaccessible to police for some reason. No one can actually just type in your reg and see where it was last seen, seemingly, even though it would be an easy way to locate criminals. And if you think well, thieves will just change the plates - no, stolen vehicles are frequently recovered on their original plates.
2) I keep saying various FB Police pages posting "we found this car X without MOT or tax, last time it was taxed in 2023!" so like...it's been driving for 3 years without anyone noticing? What are all those ANPR cameras for then??
Since it has a license plate on it, it in theory displays some ownership info. Is that enough for me to say, "it's clearly not mine now"? If it didn't, does that give me any right to take something off a public roadway?
Obviously, I know that the letter of the law, and what actually will be enforced, are two different things. Taking something that belongs to CBP would almost definitely be prosecuted in this case, regardless of whether it's legally fair game to do so.
It appears that I can't direct-link to it, but look up case 19S-CR-00528 on public.courts.in.gov - this was a case in which the Supreme Court of Indiana overturned an earlier ruling that removing a GPS monitoring device from your own car, when you weren't aware it was there, was theft.
Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it.
> the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about.
Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
Also:
>No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Have been the law for a long time too and yet…
Lol, this is just an old guy that wants to say something, _anything_ to the world
It was a poor rejoiner on Usenet in the 1980s and it's just as weak today.
The arguments for personal privacy across the globe are stronger than the US prudish resisting US prurience.
Regarding your second point, I don't think you'd go scotch free but the police wouldn't bother coming to the registered keeper's address and attempt to seize the car. I believe you'd simply get automatic fines for no MOT or no insurance (plus penalty points).
So that's that as long as you don't tweet tendencious things because then they might send several cars to arrest you /s
Take this information as you will.
ETA: "use" means "have a battery inserted"
Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
Do you give everybody your tax returns? No? Then you have something to hide.
Do you give everybody your phone records? No? Then you have something to hide.
Do you give everybody your web history? No? Then you have something to hide.
etc.
The easy counter-argument to this, which Mr. Stanks alludes to, is that there's a difference between giving everyone data, and giving law enforcement data.
But Jews-in-Amsterdam is a pretty good example.