City Council to install 20 cameras as automated license-plate recognition system(paloaltoonline.com)
paloaltoonline.com
City Council to install 20 cameras as automated license-plate recognition system
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/04/03/palo-alto-leans-on-license-plate-readers-to-dent-property-crime
223 comments
The town installed it on a one-year trial basis. The cameras didn't break any cases and cost the town a huge amount of money to pay for police overtime to review all the footage.
The city council voted unanimously to make them permanent, even in the face of clear evidence that they were useless. Why? To be seen to be doing something. They even said so in the resolution.
Check out the staff report on page 335 of the agenda packet PDF. https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/2742/fil...
The final paragraphs before hitting boilerplate were especially galling:
Even though residential burglaries are at an all-time high since the system was installed and no direct correlation can be made between the system and a reduction in residential burglaries, the cameras remain a tool that the Sheriff’s Office can use to help solve ongoing crime in Town and have been successful in solving other types of crimes.
It is impossible to tell whether the presence of the cameras themselves could have deterred additional burglaries from happening, but in all, the cameras remain a reminder to the citizens of Los Altos Hills that the Town cares about their safety and that the Council is actively trying to reduce crime from occurring in Town.
The city council voted unanimously to make them permanent, even in the face of clear evidence that they were useless. Why? To be seen to be doing something. They even said so in the resolution.
Check out the staff report on page 335 of the agenda packet PDF. https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/2742/fil...
The final paragraphs before hitting boilerplate were especially galling:
Even though residential burglaries are at an all-time high since the system was installed and no direct correlation can be made between the system and a reduction in residential burglaries, the cameras remain a tool that the Sheriff’s Office can use to help solve ongoing crime in Town and have been successful in solving other types of crimes.
It is impossible to tell whether the presence of the cameras themselves could have deterred additional burglaries from happening, but in all, the cameras remain a reminder to the citizens of Los Altos Hills that the Town cares about their safety and that the Council is actively trying to reduce crime from occurring in Town.
The cameras didn't break any cases
That's not true, the page right before the one you quoted:
During this evaluation period, a total of four suspects were arrested in two separate and ongoing investigations. Two were arrested for an armed robbery and carjacking that occurred in Cupertino and two were arrested while driving a stolen vehicle and committing various thefts in Town.
That's not true, the page right before the one you quoted:
During this evaluation period, a total of four suspects were arrested in two separate and ongoing investigations. Two were arrested for an armed robbery and carjacking that occurred in Cupertino and two were arrested while driving a stolen vehicle and committing various thefts in Town.
The system was installed with the express intent of solving and reducing residential burglaries. I should've been more specific about the crime in my comment. Another quote from the document:
Staff would like to note that 0 (zero) residential burglary cases were solved by to the ALPR system.
Staff would like to note that 0 (zero) residential burglary cases were solved by to the ALPR system.
> The system was installed with the express intent of solving and reducing residential burglaries.
Can you link to the source of this claim?
Can you link to the source of this claim?
That the linked document largely framed everything in terms of residential burglaries not enough, I suppose?
There's also the agenda packet from March, 2021: https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/49/files
Further, because of an increase in residential burglaries in 2020, staff was given direction to research current ALPR technology and report back with the steps that would be involved to implement ALPR cameras in the Town.
You can also watch the city council meetings from both of these dates (same links) to get more context.
There's also the agenda packet from March, 2021: https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/49/files
Further, because of an increase in residential burglaries in 2020, staff was given direction to research current ALPR technology and report back with the steps that would be involved to implement ALPR cameras in the Town.
You can also watch the city council meetings from both of these dates (same links) to get more context.
I don't see how reductions in business burglaries are excluded from consideration or even diminished in importance.
That's because the Town of Los Altos Hills has effectively banned all businesses within its city limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Altos_Hills,_California#St...
'Businesses' would also include business vehicles visiting the town, such as FedEx trucks, moving trucks, etc.
It seems like you can rent as well. I’m from Texas but my car is registered to my apartment’s address which seems like all they require.
Would love to see better privacy legislation that would require an opt out for everyone though.
Would love to see better privacy legislation that would require an opt out for everyone though.
>> Mark Shull, a Palo Alto resident since 1983 ... Until last year, he had never experienced property theft ... "Palo Alto has a serious and growing property theft problem," Shull said.
I wish I lived in a city where 2 converter thefts every 4 decades was the bar for "serious theft problem". The idea that this will "deter criminals" is a joke. That's as likely as hidden photo radar slowing down drivers.
The police chief with statements like "Oh we won't deploy this to residential areas, unless it's on a temporary basis for a specific crime spree" - does 2 thefts in a week, after 40 years count as a spree?
targeting "areas where we're seeing the most amount of crimes we think these would solve." - why not deploy actual police officers to these areas?
Look, I'm a law-abiding citizen, property owner, and as fed up with the light treatment of property crime as these people, but giving carte blanche to private companies to sell tools of mass surveillance and only go on the word of politicians and law enforcement to "trust us"? No thanks.
I wish I lived in a city where 2 converter thefts every 4 decades was the bar for "serious theft problem". The idea that this will "deter criminals" is a joke. That's as likely as hidden photo radar slowing down drivers.
The police chief with statements like "Oh we won't deploy this to residential areas, unless it's on a temporary basis for a specific crime spree" - does 2 thefts in a week, after 40 years count as a spree?
targeting "areas where we're seeing the most amount of crimes we think these would solve." - why not deploy actual police officers to these areas?
Look, I'm a law-abiding citizen, property owner, and as fed up with the light treatment of property crime as these people, but giving carte blanche to private companies to sell tools of mass surveillance and only go on the word of politicians and law enforcement to "trust us"? No thanks.
You've conveniently excerpted the article to avoid showing that it wasn't two thefts randomly scattered across four decades, but four decades without theft and then two thefts that have just happened. Here's the full quote:
> Mark Shull, a Palo Alto resident since 1983, also supported the use of license-plate readers. Until last year, he had never experienced property theft, Shull told the council. That's when thieves stole catalytic converters from two different cars in his household.
In recent years, there were hundreds of catalytic converter thefts in Palo Alto. Some residents have had their converters stolen multiple times, costing thousands of dollars. This includes residents who have paid several hundreds more to have converter shields installed, in a vain attempt to prevent subsequent theft. [1] Due to supply chain shortages, some people had to wait several months to get new converters, which left them unable to drive their cars. This is not an infrequent issue in Palo Alto, and it is not trivial for those who are victimized.
I'm not saying this one issue is sufficient to have ALPRs installed, but comments like yours distort the facts and mislead commenters who didn't read TFA.
1: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/10/21/will-new-laws-sto...
> Mark Shull, a Palo Alto resident since 1983, also supported the use of license-plate readers. Until last year, he had never experienced property theft, Shull told the council. That's when thieves stole catalytic converters from two different cars in his household.
In recent years, there were hundreds of catalytic converter thefts in Palo Alto. Some residents have had their converters stolen multiple times, costing thousands of dollars. This includes residents who have paid several hundreds more to have converter shields installed, in a vain attempt to prevent subsequent theft. [1] Due to supply chain shortages, some people had to wait several months to get new converters, which left them unable to drive their cars. This is not an infrequent issue in Palo Alto, and it is not trivial for those who are victimized.
I'm not saying this one issue is sufficient to have ALPRs installed, but comments like yours distort the facts and mislead commenters who didn't read TFA.
1: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/10/21/will-new-laws-sto...
> You've conveniently excerpted the article to avoid showing that it wasn't two thefts randomly scattered across four decades, but four decades without theft and then two thefts that have just happened.
But the parent said just that in the third paragraph:
> does 2 thefts in a week, after 40 years count as a spree?
But the parent said just that in the third paragraph:
> does 2 thefts in a week, after 40 years count as a spree?
GP starts off with the claim that this is 2 thefts across 40 years, and saying this is not a problem. The later portion you reference conflates citywide rates with incidents affecting a single resident.
That is, no one would say that there wasn't a crime "spree" because none of the 20 people victimized was hit enough times to constitute a "spree". That word refers to the total number of incidents, not just the number of times a single resident was hit. His use of the word spree makes it seem as if only two converters were stolen across the whole city, which is of course untrue. Perhaps this was sloppy writing, but it seems more like he is trying to downplay the frequency and recency of these crimes.
That is, no one would say that there wasn't a crime "spree" because none of the 20 people victimized was hit enough times to constitute a "spree". That word refers to the total number of incidents, not just the number of times a single resident was hit. His use of the word spree makes it seem as if only two converters were stolen across the whole city, which is of course untrue. Perhaps this was sloppy writing, but it seems more like he is trying to downplay the frequency and recency of these crimes.
Sounds like a California overly strict emissions regulation problem created through the production of a leverage point (presence of Catalytic Converter = effectively able to participate in society through realizable freedom of movement) which is an undesirable side effect of the regulation.
Who'da thunk it?
Who'da thunk it?
> I wish I lived in a city where 2 converter thefts every 4 decades was the bar for "serious theft problem".
I don't think this is fair at all.
If a couple pre-teens get third degree burns because an arsonist burned their (parents') house down, would you wish you lived in a place where one's home being an average of .02 degrees warmer over your lifetime was the bar for a serious arsony problem?
His complaint isn't about the Palo Alto of 1990, it's about the Palo Alto of today. What did or did not happen in 1990 is immaterial. Same as the pre-teens in the years leading up to the fire.
I don't think this is fair at all.
If a couple pre-teens get third degree burns because an arsonist burned their (parents') house down, would you wish you lived in a place where one's home being an average of .02 degrees warmer over your lifetime was the bar for a serious arsony problem?
His complaint isn't about the Palo Alto of 1990, it's about the Palo Alto of today. What did or did not happen in 1990 is immaterial. Same as the pre-teens in the years leading up to the fire.
The problem in your analogy is obviously that you turned discrete events into something else entirely. The person you're replying to didn't do that.
I wish I lived in a city where 2 converter thefts every 4 decades was the bar for "serious theft problem"
There are about 100 cars stolen a year, so probably more than 2 converter thefts every 4 decades. If you don't want surveillance, don't diminish and ignore crime.
There are about 100 cars stolen a year, so probably more than 2 converter thefts every 4 decades. If you don't want surveillance, don't diminish and ignore crime.
A tiny shitbox house in Palo Alto costs $3 million. Residents’ standard for quality of life is extremely high, like how clean you’d expect a $1000/night hotel room to be.
even with video evidence thats not enough to charge. this is equivalent to security system...deter criminals and encourage crimes be done in an easier area.
There are a few of these cameras in my neighborhood. I often think about having a Cool Hand Luke moment and cutting them all down. Silly string, a pipe cutter, and a couple of minutes...
Why do you need silly string?
To obscure the camera. I could just walk up behind it but vandalizing it first is more cathartic. I suppose a paint ball would do, maybe spray paint if I can reach it.
No way I'm going to try eating 50 eggs though.
No way I'm going to try eating 50 eggs though.
> That's as likely as hidden photo radar slowing down drivers.
Of course it does. What a silly comment.
Of course it does. What a silly comment.
“Hidden”? What am I, a driver, slowing down for exactly? The camera I can’t see?
In Australia you can reasonably expect them to be anywhere because they deploy lots and the locations change daily. As a result we don’t have anywhere close to the speeding problems the US does.
You are unlikely to be caught for once off speeding, but if you habitually speed, you are almost certain to start racking up fines which are enforced.
You are unlikely to be caught for once off speeding, but if you habitually speed, you are almost certain to start racking up fines which are enforced.
You get notified that you got penalty points for speeding and then you slow down everywhere because you don’t want to lose your licence.
Don't you need a ton of speeding penalties in a year to get your license suspended?
There are already lots of automated speed cameras and human speed traps everywhere. Everyone around me still speeds. I don't buy your argument that 20 cameras will fix that.
There are already lots of automated speed cameras and human speed traps everywhere. Everyone around me still speeds. I don't buy your argument that 20 cameras will fix that.
Don’t take your own word for it! https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factshee...
Tickets ($$) are a deterrent.
Tickets ($$) are a deterrent.
In the EU and UK, you get 3 (or 6 if you're significantly over the limit) penalty points on your license for speeding. They expire after 3 years. 12 points is an automatic ban.
Meanwhile in most of the US, you can get like 16 DUIs and still have a license.
Not that taking away a license is gonna stop someone from driving. They'll just now drive without a license. Probably without insurance, now that they can't get it.
Not that taking away a license is gonna stop someone from driving. They'll just now drive without a license. Probably without insurance, now that they can't get it.
The idea is that if you can’t see the cameras you’ll obey the speed limit everywhere just in case.
> "We need to deter criminals from finding Palo Alto to be a nice, easy target," Burke said during Monday's hearing. "That needs to stop."
This is like peak 2023. You create a little bubble where the cost to commit a crime increases slightly, so some percentage of criminals just go somewhere else, maybe even the next neighborhood over, where the risk is lower. Meanwhile, nobody is willing to fund the support services necessary to actually reduce the incentive to commit a crime, so crime numbers stay the same or go up, but they happen to someone else instead of you. Great stuff. If they install some spikes on their park benches homelessness will be solved too! And all with just a few dollars and a 1 hour board meeting. Incredible.
Eventually everyone decides to play the arms race (but mom they have cameras the next town over) and we get the surveillance dystopia that nobody really wanted. Anyone who tries to fix it now has to face "but now randos are stealing muh catalytic converters" as an argument against taking down the cameras. And meanwhile, people still don't have food, shelter, medical care, or a support network. But we spent all that money. It just blows my mind and no I'm not going to run for office to fix it. Sorry.
This is like peak 2023. You create a little bubble where the cost to commit a crime increases slightly, so some percentage of criminals just go somewhere else, maybe even the next neighborhood over, where the risk is lower. Meanwhile, nobody is willing to fund the support services necessary to actually reduce the incentive to commit a crime, so crime numbers stay the same or go up, but they happen to someone else instead of you. Great stuff. If they install some spikes on their park benches homelessness will be solved too! And all with just a few dollars and a 1 hour board meeting. Incredible.
Eventually everyone decides to play the arms race (but mom they have cameras the next town over) and we get the surveillance dystopia that nobody really wanted. Anyone who tries to fix it now has to face "but now randos are stealing muh catalytic converters" as an argument against taking down the cameras. And meanwhile, people still don't have food, shelter, medical care, or a support network. But we spent all that money. It just blows my mind and no I'm not going to run for office to fix it. Sorry.
Most criminals in the US aren’t desperately poor or anything. This isn’t like they’re steal bread to feed their hungry children. They mostly just do it because they enjoy it (thrill seeking) or think it’s a way to make more money faster and easier than a real job.
I was burglarized in Palo Alto a few years ago and the suspects were caught on neighboring cameras. They were apparently just high schoolers doing it for fun. I never got my stuff back. And I wasn’t living in a fancy house or anything. It was cheap apartments and they stole my kitchen supplies and old clothing and non-expensive stuff like that.
I was burglarized in Palo Alto a few years ago and the suspects were caught on neighboring cameras. They were apparently just high schoolers doing it for fun. I never got my stuff back. And I wasn’t living in a fancy house or anything. It was cheap apartments and they stole my kitchen supplies and old clothing and non-expensive stuff like that.
> Most criminals in the US aren’t desperately poor or anything (…)They mostly just do it because they enjoy it (thrill seeking)…
and
>…or think it’s a way to make more money faster and easier than a real job.
Are contradictory statements.
It is fascinating how easy it is to casually say “Criminals don’t need money, they do crime for the thrill! Or the money!” as if thrills and money are the same thing since they were said in the same breath.
The person you’re responding to pointed out several factors that could influence someone to need to get money as quickly as possible.
It isn’t a rebuttal to say “Those criminals don’t do crime to get money for reasons involving shelter, healthcare, or other things that could be addressed by a stronger safety net! They’re do crime to get money for… other, mysterious reasons! Perhaps the ill-gotten loot is itself seductive far beyond pedestrian causes like ‘rent’”
I have met quite a few criminals in my life and none of them would fit the characterization of “A cross between Evil Knievel and the hordweard dragon Smaug”
and
>…or think it’s a way to make more money faster and easier than a real job.
Are contradictory statements.
It is fascinating how easy it is to casually say “Criminals don’t need money, they do crime for the thrill! Or the money!” as if thrills and money are the same thing since they were said in the same breath.
The person you’re responding to pointed out several factors that could influence someone to need to get money as quickly as possible.
It isn’t a rebuttal to say “Those criminals don’t do crime to get money for reasons involving shelter, healthcare, or other things that could be addressed by a stronger safety net! They’re do crime to get money for… other, mysterious reasons! Perhaps the ill-gotten loot is itself seductive far beyond pedestrian causes like ‘rent’”
I have met quite a few criminals in my life and none of them would fit the characterization of “A cross between Evil Knievel and the hordweard dragon Smaug”
> Most criminals in the US aren’t desperately poor or anything. They mostly just do it because they enjoy it
You got a source that most criminals aren't poor?
You got a source that most criminals aren't poor?
> Eventually everyone decides to play the arms race
If everyone plays the arms race, and its hard to commit crime anywhere, we win? This is fundamentally a good thing. "We" here being the hard working members of society that don't turn to crime, and would rather not be victims to it.
It is very fashionable and woke to wax poetically about services, and yea, we have serious gaps there, but if someone is going to commit a crime, they should face the consequences.
If everyone plays the arms race, and its hard to commit crime anywhere, we win? This is fundamentally a good thing. "We" here being the hard working members of society that don't turn to crime, and would rather not be victims to it.
It is very fashionable and woke to wax poetically about services, and yea, we have serious gaps there, but if someone is going to commit a crime, they should face the consequences.
No one wins. You end up living in a police state and when you do experience crime, it'll likely be more severe.
The root of systemic criminality is in the failure of society to justify why it's rules should be respected. That doesn't mean that people should "get away" with crime but it does mean that if you actually want to reduce crime, not just punish criminals, society must convince those people that lawful society is something worth participating in.
The root of systemic criminality is in the failure of society to justify why it's rules should be respected. That doesn't mean that people should "get away" with crime but it does mean that if you actually want to reduce crime, not just punish criminals, society must convince those people that lawful society is something worth participating in.
Thank you.
Cripes, someone else actually bloody said it! I second it, vehemently.
All punishment does is cement the us vs. them line between the wielders of the enforcement mechanism, and the people it is enforced upon. If you can't get the populace working with and alongside you it's a losing prospect.
This is anathema to leadership/power hungry types, who believe they are the bearer of the One True Way, or the Anthropromorphic manifestation of Common Sense; but show me a crime spike, and I'll show you rampant loss of faith/confidence in the system as a cause, not merely a symptom.
This is why "Good enough for Government work" as a perjorative is a bloody terrible thing.
Cripes, someone else actually bloody said it! I second it, vehemently.
All punishment does is cement the us vs. them line between the wielders of the enforcement mechanism, and the people it is enforced upon. If you can't get the populace working with and alongside you it's a losing prospect.
This is anathema to leadership/power hungry types, who believe they are the bearer of the One True Way, or the Anthropromorphic manifestation of Common Sense; but show me a crime spike, and I'll show you rampant loss of faith/confidence in the system as a cause, not merely a symptom.
This is why "Good enough for Government work" as a perjorative is a bloody terrible thing.
The basic idea is that if you take criminals out of lawful society and put them in prison, they might someday learn that lawful society is worth participating in.
The real problem is that lots of kids have terrible parents and nothing can be done about that.
> The real problem is that lots of kids have terrible parents and nothing can be done about that.
"Great teacher inspires inner city kids" is literally a movie trope predicated on the idea that society can, in fact, do something about that. The trope is an over-simplification of the situation but we know for a fact that when society steps in, the children of "bad parents" do much better than they would otherwise. Society in turn benefits just as much, if not more so.
> The basic idea is that if you take criminals out of lawful society and put them in prison, they might someday learn that lawful society is worth participating in
Prison systems in most countries are typically designed to reinforce the disillusion and lack of belonging that landed many of the prisoners there in the first place. In their current form they actively work against incentivising people that society is worth contributing to.
To put it another way, we take people that society has generally treated like shit and treat them like worse shit. After a few years of this we turn around with a "surprised pikachu" face when those people don't end their sentence as model members of society.
People become criminals, for the most part, they're not born that way. Dealing with criminality means dealing with the situations that give rise to it. When people's needs are met and they believe they're being treated fairly, they are much less likely to engage in acts of criminality. A society that constantly broadcasts extreme displays of wealth at those living in precarity invites only discord and strife.
"Great teacher inspires inner city kids" is literally a movie trope predicated on the idea that society can, in fact, do something about that. The trope is an over-simplification of the situation but we know for a fact that when society steps in, the children of "bad parents" do much better than they would otherwise. Society in turn benefits just as much, if not more so.
> The basic idea is that if you take criminals out of lawful society and put them in prison, they might someday learn that lawful society is worth participating in
Prison systems in most countries are typically designed to reinforce the disillusion and lack of belonging that landed many of the prisoners there in the first place. In their current form they actively work against incentivising people that society is worth contributing to.
To put it another way, we take people that society has generally treated like shit and treat them like worse shit. After a few years of this we turn around with a "surprised pikachu" face when those people don't end their sentence as model members of society.
People become criminals, for the most part, they're not born that way. Dealing with criminality means dealing with the situations that give rise to it. When people's needs are met and they believe they're being treated fairly, they are much less likely to engage in acts of criminality. A society that constantly broadcasts extreme displays of wealth at those living in precarity invites only discord and strife.
> "We" here being the hard working members of society that don't turn to crime, and would rather not be victims to it.
It's not worth signing up to be victims of a police state either. I get that you think guilty people should suffer, but why should the innocent have their every moment tracked and their personal data handed over to third parties, the local police, and the state? We'd solve a lot more crime by putting cameras in people's homes too, but maybe let's not.
It's not worth signing up to be victims of a police state either. I get that you think guilty people should suffer, but why should the innocent have their every moment tracked and their personal data handed over to third parties, the local police, and the state? We'd solve a lot more crime by putting cameras in people's homes too, but maybe let's not.
It. doesn’t. make. crime. harder. It doesn’t _work_, dude. That’s the point. This is bullshit theater, they’re not even pretending this increases security.
Catching criminals is a game of cat and mouse.
I agree-face consequences.
But, it just seems as though the public is tacitly trading in freedoms for security theater, with little real benefit to society.
I agree-face consequences.
But, it just seems as though the public is tacitly trading in freedoms for security theater, with little real benefit to society.
I get why some residents want this, but won't the result be that criminals will do one of the following:
- Remove their plates before committing a crime
- Use stolen plates
- Make fake plates and put them on other vehicles and have friends drive them around far away places at the same time so they can say, "Your readers must be broken!"
- Make note of where the readers are (since they're fixed) and avoid using those streets during their crimes?
- Other stuff I'm probably not thinking of
The amount of abuse by the police that this opens the citizens up to is just ridiculous.
- Remove their plates before committing a crime
- Use stolen plates
- Make fake plates and put them on other vehicles and have friends drive them around far away places at the same time so they can say, "Your readers must be broken!"
- Make note of where the readers are (since they're fixed) and avoid using those streets during their crimes?
- Other stuff I'm probably not thinking of
The amount of abuse by the police that this opens the citizens up to is just ridiculous.
We have this in the UK and my understanding is if a car removes their plates or uses a plate which is invalid it will be flagged up and they will be inviting police attention.
Although, I think where this comes into play most is that in the UK our police cars are also fitted with the same technology so if a car has a valid plate which doesn't match their vehicle or simply has an fake plate they will be immediately pulled over, so you'd be kinda stupid if you were driving around frequently committing crimes with fake plates on.
Although, I think where this comes into play most is that in the UK our police cars are also fitted with the same technology so if a car has a valid plate which doesn't match their vehicle or simply has an fake plate they will be immediately pulled over, so you'd be kinda stupid if you were driving around frequently committing crimes with fake plates on.
The US has largely been failing to enforce license plate laws since Covid began. Yglesias has written some about the problem here: https://www.slowboring.com/p/we-cant-tolerate-fake-expired-a...
You are totally correct that our failure to enforce these laws enables quite a lot of other crime.
You are totally correct that our failure to enforce these laws enables quite a lot of other crime.
I know that California's doesn't match plates to car make/model, at least the toll and red light cameras. Someone faked my friend's license plate on their car and he's been getting all their tickets. Their cars aren't even the same color.
I lived in the UK for 10x the time I've lived in San Francisco, but here in SF I've witnessed many more instances of cars driving with obscured plates or no plates at all.
In NYC the cops are pioneers in making their license plates unreadable, at times just straight up bending them.
Steve Jobs made a point of legally driving without license plates.
That loophole was closed on 1st January 2019, well before I moved to San Francisco.
Separately: Unlike many states, California requires front license plates, too.
Separately: Unlike many states, California requires front license plates, too.
Good to know.
The front plate is about 50/50 in the states.
The front plate is about 50/50 in the states.
I don't think the camera system is picking up that the plate doesn't match the car; more if the vehicle has been reported stolen, or doesn't have tax/MOT/insurance.
It's not just plates. A big part of the point of Flock is that it does historical make/model searches, so if a beat-up black minivan is (say) used to carjack someone, you can track the minivan across the municipality, find out where else it had been in the previous days/weeks, and spot it if it comes back.
Certainly any effort to deter crime should be seen as a component of a broad effort, rather than a strategy that will be foolproof in isolation.
> - Make note of where the readers are (since they're fixed) and avoid using those streets during their crimes?
Sounds like a good way to make your neighborhood safer. Maybe more and more streets will adopt them?
> - Make note of where the readers are (since they're fixed) and avoid using those streets during their crimes?
Sounds like a good way to make your neighborhood safer. Maybe more and more streets will adopt them?
I can't speak for Palo Alto, but here in Chicago, the cars are almost always stolen. So the LPRs are pretty darn helpful. Nobody is removing plates from a stolen vehicle (no time, gotta get away), and after the victim calls police, they can flag the plate.
Except (at least where I live) the cars are stolen and used in crimes immediately, well before they're reported stolen and entered into the database. The rightful owner is more likely to be shot in their own home by some trigger-happy cop coming to arrest them, than actually catching a criminal through this mass data collection joke.
Ridiculous. Cops don’t typically storm homes because of stolen vehicles. Cars are stolen All. The. Time. Law enforcement officers know a car’s original owner is not typically the guy going for a joyride.
That doesn't disprove the previous statement. Maybe cops are almost always aware of that and do the right thing, but the system is even more useless. In that situation you'd get more arrest shootings than caught criminals.
Or even easier, simply drive in the middle lane while adjacent to another vehicle to block the camera's view of your plate. Flock's cameras mount in the center median or sidewalk and are only capable of reading plates from the two nearest lanes of traffic. There are better solutions out there which mount onto traffic signal poles and monitor each lane from above, making it much more difficult to circumvent (intentionally or by happenstance).
Of course this isn't much of a concern when installed onto a two-lane residential street for targeted enforcement. Though I know most municipalities opt to only place cameras at points of egress/ingress on their borders with other cities, and those roads tend to be more than just two lanes.
Of course this isn't much of a concern when installed onto a two-lane residential street for targeted enforcement. Though I know most municipalities opt to only place cameras at points of egress/ingress on their borders with other cities, and those roads tend to be more than just two lanes.
You're asking a lot of criminals that they dot all their i's and cross all their t's before committing a criminal act.
Criminals in general are not the Professor Moriarty type.
Criminals in general are not the Professor Moriarty type.
> Criminals in general are not the Professor Moriarty type.
"Criminals who get caught in general are not the Professor Moriarty type."
Who knows about the ones who don't?
In general crime doesn't seem like a great way to make a living but perhaps that just means I am not a Professor Moriarty type.
"Criminals who get caught in general are not the Professor Moriarty type."
Who knows about the ones who don't?
In general crime doesn't seem like a great way to make a living but perhaps that just means I am not a Professor Moriarty type.
I highly recommend reading 'Confessions of a Jewel Thief' which are memoirs of, you guessed it, a jewel thief who almost never got caught. In fact, he technically only got caught once and received amnesty for hundreds of other ones just so the police could find out how he did it.
In my early years, I was a hacker. The only reason the FBI tracked me down was because I told a 'friend' who dropped an anonymous tip. I basically got off without jail time because they wanted to know how I did it.
In both cases, the motive was 'for the thrill.' In both cases, the only reason we ever got caught -- despite much searching by the authorities -- was due to stupid mistakes after a long string of successful 'adventures.'
Anyway, just wanted to back up your claim.
In my early years, I was a hacker. The only reason the FBI tracked me down was because I told a 'friend' who dropped an anonymous tip. I basically got off without jail time because they wanted to know how I did it.
In both cases, the motive was 'for the thrill.' In both cases, the only reason we ever got caught -- despite much searching by the authorities -- was due to stupid mistakes after a long string of successful 'adventures.'
Anyway, just wanted to back up your claim.
No criminal thinks he's going to get caught. If you think you're going to get caught, you don't do the crime.
Once the word is out that something simple will break a system, yes they do it. It isn't Moriarty to think "if I take off my plates they can't see my plates".
I got my car broken into and several laptops stolen from the back of the car, in daylight at a restaurant parking lot. The restaurant had footage. The car didn't have plates. The cop took my info down so I could tell insurance I reported the problem - the cops had no intention of doing anything.
And I guarantee I can drive a five mile stretch of highway right now and I'll see paper plates or no plates on a shitty car.
I got my car broken into and several laptops stolen from the back of the car, in daylight at a restaurant parking lot. The restaurant had footage. The car didn't have plates. The cop took my info down so I could tell insurance I reported the problem - the cops had no intention of doing anything.
And I guarantee I can drive a five mile stretch of highway right now and I'll see paper plates or no plates on a shitty car.
You know I agree with you in general but I think people underestimate the amount of organized crime that goes on. A lot of criminals may not be the sharpest pencil in the drawer, but especially when it comes to theft often things are organized, planned coordinated and run a bit better than random crimes of opportunity.
Criminality also has a sampling problem -- we generally only hear about crimes that are solved.
Crimes that are solved aren't those perpetrated by the smartest criminals.
See also: how annoyed the police get whenever an unsolved crime goes viral and makes the news
Crimes that are solved aren't those perpetrated by the smartest criminals.
See also: how annoyed the police get whenever an unsolved crime goes viral and makes the news
Did you not read the article? It says if they notice a car with reported stolen plates or no plates drive up to the Stanford Shopping Center, they can dispatch police to deal with it right then and there. If they get there quickly enough they would hopefully stop the theft before it occurs or stop them from getting away.
Stanford Shopping Center has an Apple Store which has had problems with theft in the past.
They could avoid the readers, true, but they might not even realize they need to. It’ll definitely help some percent of the time.
Stanford Shopping Center has an Apple Store which has had problems with theft in the past.
They could avoid the readers, true, but they might not even realize they need to. It’ll definitely help some percent of the time.
So it makes it harder. Like almost all laws.
Laws can’t stop you doing something. They make it harder and provide punishment.
Laws can’t stop you doing something. They make it harder and provide punishment.
Poorly written laws make things harder for everyone, so that most of the burden falls on law-abiding people. Utilitarian policy prescriptions are often based on a misplaced sense of omniscience and a disregard for negative externalities.
This system doesn't work on just plates, it also makes a "fingerprint" of the vehicle. It's specifically designed to handle people trying to fool an ALPR system.
Keep in mind, most criminals are stupid.
Keep in mind, most criminals are stupid.
yeah it’s frankly trivial to steal a kia and fake plates (out of state/temp/e-ink) is the next frontier
One opportunity with this kind of technology is to identify when a plate is mismatched with the car. If you assume that stolen plates and stolen cars are a problem, which I think is a good assumption, you can make the adversary's life harder by forcing them to match plate to car make/model/color/year by deploying an ALPR that alerts on mismatches.
There's a good story here about flipping the current economics for criminals--it's trivially cheap to steal plates and cars--towards a world where they have the harder problem of matching plate to car.
There's a good story here about flipping the current economics for criminals--it's trivially cheap to steal plates and cars--towards a world where they have the harder problem of matching plate to car.
> forcing them to match plate to car make/model/color/year
(In a few years) It's amazing how many crimes are committed in white/black/grey Toyota RAV4/Camrys.
(In a few years) It's amazing how many crimes are committed in white/black/grey Toyota RAV4/Camrys.
Things like this will make it interesting too:
https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/5/22867090/bmw-color-changin...
https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/5/22867090/bmw-color-changin...
disclaimer: I live close to east oakland
As mentioned, everybody is supposed to have a license plate - even a temporary one. In reality, it’s rarely to never enforced, cars and/or license plates are frequently stolen (especially Hyundai/Kia), all manner e-ink plates even stickers plates are allowed. Frankly this has really enabled a cottage industry of thieves and criminals.
I’m generally against a surveillance state, but the utter lack of enforcement on this issue enables and possibly encourages a range crimes
As mentioned, everybody is supposed to have a license plate - even a temporary one. In reality, it’s rarely to never enforced, cars and/or license plates are frequently stolen (especially Hyundai/Kia), all manner e-ink plates even stickers plates are allowed. Frankly this has really enabled a cottage industry of thieves and criminals.
I’m generally against a surveillance state, but the utter lack of enforcement on this issue enables and possibly encourages a range crimes
Why all these references to Kia being stolen?
Kia's and hyundais recently had a simple flaw allowing theft of the vehicle
https://www.thedrive.com/news/hyundai-kia-say-theyll-fix-mil...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/hyundai-kia-say-theyll-fix-mil...
e-ink plates, as well as sticker plates are parts of dmv pilot program. it's not some overlooked violation.
Perhaps I don't fully understand the situation in America (in my country a vehicle will generally have a license plate when it rolls off the dealer's lot, which stays on the vehicle throughout its entire life) but what would anyone need an e-ink plate for?
It is bizarre. Here in California you didn't used you buy a car with plates at all. Then they started to require paper temporary ones.
Why they don't just have plates fitted on the lot I don't know. I can't see how it saves any time, the dealer would just have to have the plate ready for each car like in most of the world. It seems that the simplest solution was too hard to implement.
Why they don't just have plates fitted on the lot I don't know. I can't see how it saves any time, the dealer would just have to have the plate ready for each car like in most of the world. It seems that the simplest solution was too hard to implement.
in CA, new cars are issued permanent plates when they are registered. once they're registered, they're considered used cars, so dealers don't register them while they sit on the lot (they also don't own them before they're sold, usually a bank or the OEM does). the temp plate system that was just introduced worked fine in states with lower car sales but probably took a while to roll out here.
it's a combination of outdated laws, outdated technology, and massive amount of car sales. it's finally catching up.
it's a combination of outdated laws, outdated technology, and massive amount of car sales. it's finally catching up.
Very odd, I bought my car new in IL in 2018 and it came with permanent plates already installed.
It varies by state.
In many states you get a temporary plate from the dealer that is good for 30 days or so, and receive your permanent (or annual) plate from the state in the mail.
If you buy a used car from a private seller you have to go to the motor vehicle bureau and transfer the title and register the car yourself. If you buy from a dealer they handle that for you (and charge you a few hundred dollars as a "document processing fee").
In some cases you can transfer the plate from your old car to your new car, but that's not always possible. There doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme or reason to it.
In many states you get a temporary plate from the dealer that is good for 30 days or so, and receive your permanent (or annual) plate from the state in the mail.
If you buy a used car from a private seller you have to go to the motor vehicle bureau and transfer the title and register the car yourself. If you buy from a dealer they handle that for you (and charge you a few hundred dollars as a "document processing fee").
In some cases you can transfer the plate from your old car to your new car, but that's not always possible. There doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme or reason to it.
I have no idea about the perceived need but it seems that e-ink license plates are quite real.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/10/digital-license-plates-...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/10/digital-license-plates-...
It's actually different per state - different laws and levels of enforcement. Some states you can't drive off the lot without a plate, others give temporary ones. That makes selling cars faster, in a state with a terrible Dept. of Motor Vehicles, like CA - where the town in question is located.
What's so terrible about the California DMV? In recent years, they've done a huge digital modernization effort.
When I had to renew my license in person within the last year, I completed almost all of the application online. I could also upload and submit documents for pre-review for a REAL ID. The website let me book an appointment at a nearby DMV office. I can't remember exactly how long it took overall, but compared to many other governmental or big business processes, it was a perfectly fine process.
Now, the California DMV's approval of AVs without safety drivers... that I do have many more concerns about...
When I had to renew my license in person within the last year, I completed almost all of the application online. I could also upload and submit documents for pre-review for a REAL ID. The website let me book an appointment at a nearby DMV office. I can't remember exactly how long it took overall, but compared to many other governmental or big business processes, it was a perfectly fine process.
Now, the California DMV's approval of AVs without safety drivers... that I do have many more concerns about...
One reason is that you don’t have to put a new registration sticker on the plate each year. The e-ink plate automatically shows the updated registration.
It takes 5 goddamn minutes, once a year to put a new registration sticker on.
So that's, what, about 5.5 hrs total over 65 years of driving?
So that's, what, about 5.5 hrs total over 65 years of driving?
Neither should be necessary. Cops can check registration electronically already by scanner.
Sure but it’s probably simpler for parking enforcement and cops to just look at the color of the sticker to see if it’s out of date.
Stickers are also useful so that I know which neighbor to shake my head at as I pass by (as long as they don’t see me).
Stickers are also useful so that I know which neighbor to shake my head at as I pass by (as long as they don’t see me).
It’s not simpler… probably still cheaper. There’s also the month and whether it was stolen from/to etc. Most accurate record is DMV database.
No, it is simpler to drive down a block and within 8 seconds the cop has viewed the colors of 15 parked cars on that block vs scanning those plates.
There's been several armed robberies in Palo Alto Midtown recently - I personally don't mind increased security if it reduces those.
You're in the bullseye of the law enforcement pitch then. There are lots of ways to address armed robberies without mass surveillance. They'll pitch this as "one more tool to fight crime <x>" but you wait, it will actually be "THE tool for preventing a wide range of behaviors, some maybe even illegal!"
You've totally failed to respond to GP's comment. Do you think this will be ineffective at its stated goals?
Surveillance has never been greater -- are cities markedly less violent than in the past?
(No, urban/city violence is on the rise..[0])
[0]: https://www.city-journal.org/article/criminal-neglect
(No, urban/city violence is on the rise..[0])
[0]: https://www.city-journal.org/article/criminal-neglect
Crime has been on a largely downward trend since the 90s. Yes, there has been a partial reverse since 2020, associated with a general breakdown in norms during Covid. But the broader trend is down.
Please define "the past", because when I'm talking about lifetime trends I don't use 2019 as my baseline.
I think it's very unlikely there will be a statistically significant increase in violent crime conviction rates when these cameras go into action.
I agree mass surveillance is bad however is some surveillance good? Coming from London the fact there is basically no surveillance such that the police need to ask people if they were doing their own surveillance to help with a case strikes me as crazy. Each piece of surveillance should be rigorously questioned but I don't think the answer to a safe society is none.
Back in 1968 the NYPD had an effective way to address armed robberies. Stake-out squad members would hide inside targeted businesses and then just shoot the robbers. However, this approach has fallen out of favor in modern law enforcement.
https://qualitypolicing.com/the-stake-out-squad/
https://qualitypolicing.com/the-stake-out-squad/
If Reddit is any guide, Brazil seems to have come up with the innovation of bystanders beating the crap out of any criminals they can catch in the act. Problematic for a lot of different reasons but you gotta admire the simplicity of the idea.
[deleted]
There are many of us who just don’t care about mass surveillance.
Why would license plate cameras deter armed robberies? Aren't there other things that would be more effective? PA's police department doesn't seem to be lacking for funding, its budget has increased over time instead of being cut. Have the police been responding to callers with "sorry, we can't come take a report for your armed robbery because we're manually writing down license plate numbers"?
At best license plate cameras seem like they might deter bad driving if they make it easier to issue citations to bad drivers. I cannot imagine how they would meaningfully impact armed robberies or other violent crime. It's just more surveillance that in practice probably increases police dept income (via tickets). Maybe it slightly reduces the time police officers spend in courtrooms or writing up tickets, leaving them more time to respond to calls?
Don't let yourself get tricked into rubber stamping warrantless surveillance just because you want to be safer in some other area.
At best license plate cameras seem like they might deter bad driving if they make it easier to issue citations to bad drivers. I cannot imagine how they would meaningfully impact armed robberies or other violent crime. It's just more surveillance that in practice probably increases police dept income (via tickets). Maybe it slightly reduces the time police officers spend in courtrooms or writing up tickets, leaving them more time to respond to calls?
Don't let yourself get tricked into rubber stamping warrantless surveillance just because you want to be safer in some other area.
Because most of the recent crimes where the robbers were caught drove into PA from Oakland or EPA or wherever and some of those were caught by license plate cameras just further afield. I wonder if one of the reasons Midtown is picked is because it's close to the 101 and because of the lack of security cameras. If people wanted to target wealthy people they'd be better suited looking towards Atherton or Woodside or something.
The primary effect of ALPRs in other cities has been to identify stolen cars as well as those registered to owners with open warrants. They aren't typically used for traffic enforcement.
The best license plate readers are the ones that not only optically lift those alphanumeric symbols off of either license plate but also does:
1. identify your car stereo bluetooth ID
2. any bluetooth devices on your vehicle
3. has direct access to national registry of stolen plates
4. and a mobile modem in which to send alerts with.
5. HD webcam auto-zooming to the driver's side of the vehicle.
6. lift On-Star ID
Hey, what do I know? I'm just spitballing out there.
1. identify your car stereo bluetooth ID
2. any bluetooth devices on your vehicle
3. has direct access to national registry of stolen plates
4. and a mobile modem in which to send alerts with.
5. HD webcam auto-zooming to the driver's side of the vehicle.
6. lift On-Star ID
Hey, what do I know? I'm just spitballing out there.
Make sure to also identify all the passengers and any wireless devices they're carrying. You might catch a big crime network of people who hang out in their cars and talk about driving 7 mph over the limit on the highway while not wearing a seatbelt. You could build a big network of connections, maybe it would turn out that speeding is a social contagion and sending the worst speeders to a forced re-education program would deter the rest from speeding!
/s
/s
Like I said, this is just a spitball attempt to raise awareness of "license-plater readers" and something something about individual freedom.
Don't forget to identify any political bumper stickers.
Wouldnt work in America, ya know, free speech and all.
But the rest of the world, quite likely, even got support of GPRS or whatever it's called nowadays.
But the rest of the world, quite likely, even got support of GPRS or whatever it's called nowadays.
As we wind down police forces, due to both the political climate and the ever shrinking pool of recruits; mass surveillance is the inevitable stop gap.
Nobody is winding down police forces. It's difficult right now to hire, but part of the reason for that is that there's lots of demand.
The results are mixed at best, but the defund movement exists
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/at-leas...
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/at-leas...
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund...
Every movement exists. There are lots of people in the world.
… and there is a movement to wind down police forces in the US.
There is a movement to teach students that the Earth is flat, too.
For the record, I’m not saying whether or not the movement is good or bad, I’m just saying it exists and it has enough political weight for the mainstream media to cover it. I am trying hard to be neutral even though our politics likely align
The reason I know that there's a movement to teach that the Earth is flat is because the mainstream media covered it.
Why would the mainstream media waste its and our time covering a whacko fringe movement such as "the Earth is flat" rather than things that actually affect the world or the local community in a real way.
People who think the earth is flat, or we've never landed on the moon, or that the world will end when the Mayan calendar runs out of days, just don't matter and should not be recognized as if they do.
People who think the earth is flat, or we've never landed on the moon, or that the world will end when the Mayan calendar runs out of days, just don't matter and should not be recognized as if they do.
What’s your point? I’m not arguing their merit. They both exist contrary to your first comment where you claim that it didn’t exist.
You’re objectively wrong. At least have the grace to concede
You’re objectively wrong. At least have the grace to concede
Nobody is winding down police forces, is what I said, not that you couldn't find some group of people on Twitter saying that we should. I'm not worried that any public school in the nation is going to teach about the atmosflat, and you don't need to worry about police abolition.
Yes, let’s completely ignore the Guardian article.
The difference between the two is that one is a source of amusement while the other group has already affected public policy and budgets. It’s estimated that there are 3 million flat earthers in the US, while there are approximately 50 million people who supported the defund the police movement in 2021.
Unlike the flat earth people, the defund the police populist movement actually has political clout and they have changed budgets for several police departments. If you stick your head in the ground, the progressive populists don’t magically go away
You’re wrong
The difference between the two is that one is a source of amusement while the other group has already affected public policy and budgets. It’s estimated that there are 3 million flat earthers in the US, while there are approximately 50 million people who supported the defund the police movement in 2021.
Unlike the flat earth people, the defund the police populist movement actually has political clout and they have changed budgets for several police departments. If you stick your head in the ground, the progressive populists don’t magically go away
You’re wrong
I think you might be on tilt. It's just a message board; I think we can be comfortable with what the thread says about our respective arguments, and wrap it up right here.
Palo Alto's police budget is much higher than it was in the past. Is the PA police department being "wound down"? Do you have sources for this?
You’re in the SF Bay Area and you’ve never heard of people with this ideology?
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund...
I’m not arguing its merit. I’m just point out that it exists
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund...
I’m not arguing its merit. I’m just point out that it exists
All you're pointing out is that, amongst large groups of people, you can find (relatively) small numbers of people that share implausible beliefs. All anybody here is pointing out to you is that police departments aren't being wound down; the winding down of law enforcement is not, in fact, something we need to plan for or accommodate with technology.
Yes, BLM progressives who are making inroads with their defund the police movement are a “small group of people”. /s
You can’t back up your weak argument beyond repeatedly referencing flat earthers
You can’t back up your weak argument beyond repeatedly referencing flat earthers
Yes: they are a very small group of people, repudiated so decisively in the last Democratic primary cycle that Brandon Johnson had to run anti-defund in the Chicago mayoral runoff. Nobody is winding down the police. You've gone a little on tilt here.
chaostheory(1)
> As we wind down police forces
Any sources to back this up?
Any sources to back this up?
Here's one example [0]. I'm not sure what, if any, dent this makes relative to historical budget levels in US police forces, or if it truly counts as "winding down". But there are headlines
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-de...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-de...
That’s two years old. Several of those cities have reversed course. NYC just gave a huge increase to the police, and a new Texas law forced Austin to refund. Others are mentioned as “planning to” which never happened.
It’s an old problem. Keep in mind that this article is from before Floyd. There are more sources
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/675359781/americas-growing-co...
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/675359781/americas-growing-co...
Your linked article says they're struggling to hire enough cops. This seems like the opposite of winding down a department; they're attempting to grow.
Ok I misread the parent comment. Did you not read the other comment next to mine? In case, you can’t read that comment for whatever reason:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/at-leas...
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/at-leas...
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund...
Kind of a weird comment; haven't both police force sizes and budgets grown as the mass surveillance state has also come into reality?
No. Police forces have had shortages since the mid 2000s. It’s gotten worse since then. It’s been a regular news feature since about 2010. It’s old news
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/19/us/police-staffing-shorta...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/19/us/police-staffing-shorta...
I think you should review how you came at this argument. 'Winding down' something and having a shortage of one of that thing's inputs are two very different concepts, and you seem to bounce back and forth between talking about it as a hiring problem vs an abolition effort.
You’re right. Here are other links
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/at-leas...
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/at-leas...
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund...
Apparently you're just interested in using other people as foils rather than having a discussion. Good luck with that.
Nobody is "winding down" their departments. At the absolute most, departments arent getting the same level of funding increases that theyre used to getting. Plus virtually all of the top national leaders, and all of the state/city level leaders are still pushing for overall increases in police funding.
Most people have no intention of "winding down" police forces. In fact, a lot of "defund the police" proposals would free up police resources that can then go toward catching criminals by not using them for things we don't need police involved in.
We have ALPR in Santa Barbara at the city parking lots.
These have 72-hour data retention and 30-day data retention at the airport and waterfront.
While SB’s are not placed around the city to track all license plates like the ones in Palo Alto, Reifschneider’s statement of Palo Alto’s retention limits being “the shortest in the state” is not fully accurate.
PDF: https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/Final...
These have 72-hour data retention and 30-day data retention at the airport and waterfront.
While SB’s are not placed around the city to track all license plates like the ones in Palo Alto, Reifschneider’s statement of Palo Alto’s retention limits being “the shortest in the state” is not fully accurate.
PDF: https://santabarbaraca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/Final...
Presumably because of the title, people are making this a thread about license plates. But Flock (a YC company!) does a whole bunch of ML image classification stuff; think of it as something closer to a Google search for cars that have traversed your municipality in the last week, searchable not just by plate but by make, model, and distinguishing characteristics; you can even track cars by bumper sticker.
We went through this exercise last year in Oak Park, with our local PD requesting 20+ cameras --- a tactical misstep, because they'd been piloting a small number of cameras, and the larger request drove their acquisition costs across the threshold of needing board approval, which they were surprised to discover was contentious.
Because the board was split on the prospect of giving OPPD a Village-wide "Google for all movements of any car everywhere" capability, we were able to extract concessions. We got board approval for a much-reduced deployment (I think we have 8 cameras), contingent on recommendations from our citizen police oversight and IT commissions (I'm on one of those).
In the end, we got a General Order issued from OPPD limiting the use of cameras to violent crime, all uses traceable to case numbers reviewable by our police oversight commission, no usage from personal machines by OPPD staff but rather only OPPD-issued equipment, mandatory 2FA, and some other things I forget.
We were much less successful at regulating data sharing. This is a huge feature of Flock, and part of its viral customer acquisition strategy. OPPD found out about Flock by getting access to data from neighboring municipalities; many police departments run "transparency portals" to show you who they're sharing with, and it's often "every law enforcement agency in the region". Which makes sense, if you look at it from the perspective of the police department! But it makes it much harder to regulate how cameras are used, because our PD can't issue General Orders for other PDs, and Flock doesn't appear to provide any tools to enforce limits on data sharing.
The obvious thing to ask for in a pilot deployment is "turn all the sharing off", but that's hard when Flock's foot in the door was sharing from some other department.
I'd have been happier if we'd ended up with zero Flock cameras, but I'm not sure how political realistic that would have been, and I'm surprised we were able to extract as many concessions as we did.
Probably the most important thing we got was a commitment to a review of the effectiveness of the cameras after a year; presumably, if OPPD can't tie the cameras to solving specific violent crimes, we'll stop paying for the cameras.
The Village Board didn't enjoy being blindsided by a random acquisition request, and demanded a process be put in place for future surveillance tech requests. So one happy side effect of this is that we teed up ACLU CCOPS†, which I expect to see passed in the next couple months. CCOPS theoretically prevents municipal agencies from deploying surveillance tech without board approval, even if the cost is below purchasing thresholds.
Get involved in this stuff. You'd be surprised how little engagement there is at the local level, which is where a lot of the most important governing decisions are made.
† https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/community-control-over-p...
We went through this exercise last year in Oak Park, with our local PD requesting 20+ cameras --- a tactical misstep, because they'd been piloting a small number of cameras, and the larger request drove their acquisition costs across the threshold of needing board approval, which they were surprised to discover was contentious.
Because the board was split on the prospect of giving OPPD a Village-wide "Google for all movements of any car everywhere" capability, we were able to extract concessions. We got board approval for a much-reduced deployment (I think we have 8 cameras), contingent on recommendations from our citizen police oversight and IT commissions (I'm on one of those).
In the end, we got a General Order issued from OPPD limiting the use of cameras to violent crime, all uses traceable to case numbers reviewable by our police oversight commission, no usage from personal machines by OPPD staff but rather only OPPD-issued equipment, mandatory 2FA, and some other things I forget.
We were much less successful at regulating data sharing. This is a huge feature of Flock, and part of its viral customer acquisition strategy. OPPD found out about Flock by getting access to data from neighboring municipalities; many police departments run "transparency portals" to show you who they're sharing with, and it's often "every law enforcement agency in the region". Which makes sense, if you look at it from the perspective of the police department! But it makes it much harder to regulate how cameras are used, because our PD can't issue General Orders for other PDs, and Flock doesn't appear to provide any tools to enforce limits on data sharing.
The obvious thing to ask for in a pilot deployment is "turn all the sharing off", but that's hard when Flock's foot in the door was sharing from some other department.
I'd have been happier if we'd ended up with zero Flock cameras, but I'm not sure how political realistic that would have been, and I'm surprised we were able to extract as many concessions as we did.
Probably the most important thing we got was a commitment to a review of the effectiveness of the cameras after a year; presumably, if OPPD can't tie the cameras to solving specific violent crimes, we'll stop paying for the cameras.
The Village Board didn't enjoy being blindsided by a random acquisition request, and demanded a process be put in place for future surveillance tech requests. So one happy side effect of this is that we teed up ACLU CCOPS†, which I expect to see passed in the next couple months. CCOPS theoretically prevents municipal agencies from deploying surveillance tech without board approval, even if the cost is below purchasing thresholds.
Get involved in this stuff. You'd be surprised how little engagement there is at the local level, which is where a lot of the most important governing decisions are made.
† https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/community-control-over-p...
It'll be fascinating to hear whether the data shows that the cameras helped with solving violent crimes.
They have helped, in at least some cases. I have not heard or seen whether they make a statistical difference. Of course then we get back to "if it only saves one victim" arguments.
UK: hold my beer while I show you our ANPR that's literally everywhere
This is very much something I've not thought much about. There's doesn't seem to be publicised cases where this is abused and having a system where any stolen vehicle can be pinged on major roads is a rather useful thing to have.
There are also sane plate laws in the UK, and plates are tied to a specific vehicle make/model, and the plates are larger, more visible, and far easier for automated systems to read.
What do they do about cars without license plates? I seem to recall that new cars in California are sold with NO plates, not even paper temporary tags.
They changed the law a little while back and now new cars come with a paper number plate. The bridges were complaining that too many people didn’t pay tolls.
Steve Jobs used to get a new Mercedes S class every three months so he wouldn’t have to have a plate.
Steve Jobs used to get a new Mercedes S class every three months so he wouldn’t have to have a plate.
That's hearsay regarding rationale and frequency, and it was an SL not S, and it displayed its barcode and regularly parked in front of IL-1. I'd walk or park near it all the time.
So was it a handicap spot or not?
usually, but legit considering he was not well and walking around with someone else's liver. i never saw him parked there before he'd had surgery, personally.
When I got my car (used) in 2017 I just left the dealer plates on it for about a year, always keeping it washed.
For both you and gp - why? What's the advantage?
Being a schmuck and not having to pay tolls. It's stealing from your fellow taxpayers.
Actually at the time I did not drive on any toll roads.
Honestly I was mostly just lazy, I can't think of any real advantage. I guess if I accidentally went late through an intersection and would have been subject to a red light ticket, I would have been saved on that. However I think this has never happened to me, so this is not a real conscious reason for me.
Surely they know from the dealer whom that plate number was assigned to. In fact: when they send the metal one does it have the same number?
In 2017, California did not have temporary plates. The dealer plate just said "Honda". To track the car, the dealer tapes a very small piece of paper to the inside of the window, so if you are pulled over an officer standing right next to your car could read that to verify your car is registered etc. But they are not going to do that unless they have some other reason to pull you over.
California has required dealers to put temporary license plates with unique IDs on all cars that don't already have license plates.
The change took effect January 1, 2019: https://us.dealertrack.com/content/dealertrack/en/landing-pa...
The change took effect January 1, 2019: https://us.dealertrack.com/content/dealertrack/en/landing-pa...
What was the rationale for not requiring plates? California is also the only state I've driven in where the freeways don't have mile markers. How are people supposed to report the location of an accident or breakdown?
Plates were required always... But plates are sent by mail (mostly), after some processing, so there's a delay between first registration and when the plate can be installed. California finally started doing temporary plates in 2019.
California has some mile posts and some numbered exits, but you're expected to report location by named exit. Ex: North on the 405, right after Pico Boulevard. Etc.
The California highway system was extensive before federal highway standards were developed, and California was exempted from exit number requirements. In ~2000, California decided to add exit numbers 'over the next ten years' as signs are replaced; twenty years later, it's still not complete, but Google still likes to give directions with exit numbers only, as if that were useful.
California has some mile posts and some numbered exits, but you're expected to report location by named exit. Ex: North on the 405, right after Pico Boulevard. Etc.
The California highway system was extensive before federal highway standards were developed, and California was exempted from exit number requirements. In ~2000, California decided to add exit numbers 'over the next ten years' as signs are replaced; twenty years later, it's still not complete, but Google still likes to give directions with exit numbers only, as if that were useful.
I built and sold a parking enforcement product that uses ALPR from a mobile app.
In my customers experience, cars missing “normal” license plates (those without special characters or sports themes) are few enough to not make an impact on broad goals.
New cars missing plates completely would be a similarly low portion of consideration. Enforcement of cars missing plates illegally is the duty of patrolling PD.
Which is to say, drive around without plates long enough you’ll get pulled over.
In my customers experience, cars missing “normal” license plates (those without special characters or sports themes) are few enough to not make an impact on broad goals.
New cars missing plates completely would be a similarly low portion of consideration. Enforcement of cars missing plates illegally is the duty of patrolling PD.
Which is to say, drive around without plates long enough you’ll get pulled over.
It seems like since Covid closed the DMV, even though they've re-opened, law enforcement has been pretty lax on enforcing license plate laws
What happens if you don't pull over? In cities like Philadelphia now (and I'd be surprised if this is not also the case in many CA cities), the police are not allowed to chase cars. So if you want to commit a crime, remove the plate and if the cop tries to pull you over, just drive away! We had a neighborhood meeting with a local police captain in Philly who admitted as much.
[deleted]
[deleted]
new cars in california are sold with temp tags now. they look the same as the ones in other states.
More or less. For some reason they all have totally different fonts and layouts, but it's a step up from the wild west it used to be.
I got a lot of pushback on a comment that I left regarding surveillance in another thread yesterday, but I feel especially vindicated by this so I'll repost it here:
---
The main problem I see is that people are completely distracted by privacy from corporations - when what we really need to be worried about is privacy from our own governments. So much ink is spilled talking about cookies, ads tracking, etc. But really what's the worst a corporation is going to do? Try to sell you something?
Meanwhile, we continue to allow our governments to regulate and legislate ever more intrusive invasions of our privacy. And they can put us in jail, or worse.
This also gets blurry as governments take increasing control of companies, to the point that some are just about arms of the government, surveilling us in ways that the government can't (yet) do on their own - and being forced to pass that data to the government under penalty of law themselves.
---
A lot of the pushback I got is that corporations can do bad things with your data, which of course is true. We should strive for privacy in the general sense, from corporations and our government. I just think, especially outside HN, that the the conversation is far too heavily weighted toward corporations when the far greater harm comes from our governments - and almost no time in general public media is given to this.
I got some pushback as well that if corporations surveil you, they give your data to the government anyway, so it's important to have privacy from corporations. Which is ironic, since that's much like what I said in my last paragraph.
We need privacy generally, but I see law after law and article after article talking about privacy from corporations, while our governments are gaining more and more ground into surveilling us - often with the help of corporations. But let's keep the focus on exactly how our governments are spying on us and try to address that.
Ad-targeting is a small problem compared to the bigger issue of government surveillance - often via corporations (even if I agree that corporate spying is also a problem).
Let's focus on some laws that take away the governments ability to demand our data from Google, FB, etc. Let's stop allowing our governments to put cameras all over the place. Let's demand that our intelligence agencies stop spying on us with wide nets. Let's stop allowing our police forces to buy sophisticated tracking software and phone break-in software.
---
The main problem I see is that people are completely distracted by privacy from corporations - when what we really need to be worried about is privacy from our own governments. So much ink is spilled talking about cookies, ads tracking, etc. But really what's the worst a corporation is going to do? Try to sell you something?
Meanwhile, we continue to allow our governments to regulate and legislate ever more intrusive invasions of our privacy. And they can put us in jail, or worse.
This also gets blurry as governments take increasing control of companies, to the point that some are just about arms of the government, surveilling us in ways that the government can't (yet) do on their own - and being forced to pass that data to the government under penalty of law themselves.
---
A lot of the pushback I got is that corporations can do bad things with your data, which of course is true. We should strive for privacy in the general sense, from corporations and our government. I just think, especially outside HN, that the the conversation is far too heavily weighted toward corporations when the far greater harm comes from our governments - and almost no time in general public media is given to this.
I got some pushback as well that if corporations surveil you, they give your data to the government anyway, so it's important to have privacy from corporations. Which is ironic, since that's much like what I said in my last paragraph.
We need privacy generally, but I see law after law and article after article talking about privacy from corporations, while our governments are gaining more and more ground into surveilling us - often with the help of corporations. But let's keep the focus on exactly how our governments are spying on us and try to address that.
Ad-targeting is a small problem compared to the bigger issue of government surveillance - often via corporations (even if I agree that corporate spying is also a problem).
Let's focus on some laws that take away the governments ability to demand our data from Google, FB, etc. Let's stop allowing our governments to put cameras all over the place. Let's demand that our intelligence agencies stop spying on us with wide nets. Let's stop allowing our police forces to buy sophisticated tracking software and phone break-in software.
So, a local government going after a small subset of positional data. Good heavens, doesn't Ring already do facial recognition and license plates and give well-heeled clients access to that feed?
This may not have worked well for this specific PD for whatever reason, but Flock is already solving 5% of all US crime today. That’s pretty amazing.
Wow, this is sinister and really needs to stop.
This would be fine if all the data was public, that is the only way to make public surveillance systems do more harm than good.
Maybe someone should assemble and open-source a license plate reader we can all carry — crowd-source pushing packets to a web site where cars + licenses are displayed on a map.
It would more or less make the data egalitarian, make some kind of point maybe?
I'm actually not averse to license plate readers. I'm not a privacy absolutist. I lean toward the privacy where you have the "expectation of privacy" but I could be convinced license plate readers cross that line.
It would more or less make the data egalitarian, make some kind of point maybe?
I'm actually not averse to license plate readers. I'm not a privacy absolutist. I lean toward the privacy where you have the "expectation of privacy" but I could be convinced license plate readers cross that line.
If these criminals are caught for thefts, should the wealthier jurisdictions also pay for their justice via taxes?
Wealthier jurisdictions already do pay in the form of police expenditures. The vast majority of crime committed in wealthier jurisdictions is by people who do not live or pay taxes within the jurisdiction.
This is all moot until activist prosecutors and judges stop coddling criminals and start enforcing the rule of law.
Why the downvotes? Shouldn’t those committing armed robbery and property theft be punished?
Illegal search. Why is this still a thing?
How is this any more illegal than a cop calling in a license plate number of any random vehicle they see on the road (which is not at all illegal)?
Automation changes the character of the policy and enforcement. This has been recognized before.
GPs question still stands. Changing the character of policy and enforcement doesn't turn automatically reading license plates into illegal search. At least there isn't any obvious logical way to come to that conclusion. Do you care to point it out?
Appears you’ve read it as a defense, but comment was meant as a side point.
Nope, far from it.
Now Palo Alto can catch people from Mountain View who try to sneak into their parks with more efficiency!
Context: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/01/25/palo-alto-banned-...
Basically ever since segregation was banned Palo Alto had laws that only 'local residents' could use certain parks.
The law was pretty obvious in its intent and the law was struck surprisingly recently.
Basically ever since segregation was banned Palo Alto had laws that only 'local residents' could use certain parks.
The law was pretty obvious in its intent and the law was struck surprisingly recently.
Read my parallel comment — that wasn’t the reason for excluding non-residents from that one park. It was about the selfish argument made by Los Altos city council.
The segregation argument was a good one, but not for the reason you cite. Because of prior segregation, the population of PA is still lopsided, and that meant a resident-only park had an unfair bias.
After a bit of a rush when the restriction was dropped, it settled back to its normal quiet state. In reality there was de facto no restriction: the entry gate was rarely staffed and you could always enter through Arastradero Park which, like all the other parks in Palo Alto, has no restrictions at all.
The segregation argument was a good one, but not for the reason you cite. Because of prior segregation, the population of PA is still lopsided, and that meant a resident-only park had an unfair bias.
After a bit of a rush when the restriction was dropped, it settled back to its normal quiet state. In reality there was de facto no restriction: the entry gate was rarely staffed and you could always enter through Arastradero Park which, like all the other parks in Palo Alto, has no restrictions at all.
Do you have any basis for saying this law was racist or had segregationist goals?
It’s not like the neighboring cities (Mt View and Menlo Park) have many black people.
My understanding is that the local resident restrictions were based on some local politics around purchasing the park a long time ago, and then transformed into a Palo Alto NIMBY policy. In 2008 Los Altos Hills tried to buy access to Foothill Park.
It’s not like the neighboring cities (Mt View and Menlo Park) have many black people.
My understanding is that the local resident restrictions were based on some local politics around purchasing the park a long time ago, and then transformed into a Palo Alto NIMBY policy. In 2008 Los Altos Hills tried to buy access to Foothill Park.
"The lawsuit also stated that the city's ban on nonresidents "traces its roots to an era when racial discrimination in and around the City was open and notorious" and cites mid-20th century policies such as redlining and "block busting" that prevented Black people from buying homes in Palo Alto."
I'd prefer to point people to the text of the article rather than trying to relay a point made there to here and back again.
I'd prefer to point people to the text of the article rather than trying to relay a point made there to here and back again.
That’s a lawsuit from a motivated interest group, it’s not a primary source.
In 1970, Menlo Park was 17.4% black. Wikipedia says in 2020 it was about 3%
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/MenloPark70.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menlo_Park,_California
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/MenloPark70.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menlo_Park,_California
Gentrification at its best
> It’s not like the neighboring cities (Mt View and Menlo Park) have many black people.
East Palo Alto?
East Palo Alto?
Mountain View blocks non-residents from some parks? Palo Alto was sued because only residents could use Foothills Park. Hmm..
(When Palo Alto got the right to buy the property that became foothill park, PA asked the towns adjacent to the property if they wanted to split the bill. They declined, figuring they could use it anyway if they didn’t help pay for it. So PA locked them out, and spent 50 years paying off the bond they raised for the purchase.)
(When Palo Alto got the right to buy the property that became foothill park, PA asked the towns adjacent to the property if they wanted to split the bill. They declined, figuring they could use it anyway if they didn’t help pay for it. So PA locked them out, and spent 50 years paying off the bond they raised for the purchase.)
Thankfully my bicycle doesn't have license plates so I can still get away from the crime of entering Foothills Park (where bicycles are allowed) from Arastradero Preserve (where bicycles are ALSO allowed) by crossing through Gate D (an imaginary place in the world through which bicycles Definitely May Not Travel).
Best to just ride up Page Mill Road, I'm sure that annoys nobody at all.
Best to just ride up Page Mill Road, I'm sure that annoys nobody at all.
Good. Every car should be tracked. They are far too dangerous. Crazy we have so many rules for guns, but not cars. Guns have to be locked up, but not cars??
You can get these plastic license plate covers. I don't know of anyone who has gotten caught using them and I see them everywhere. The red light cameras can't catch you and you can risk t-boning people at will.
I very, very rarely see the license plate obscuring plastic covers. They're pretty obvious when you see them. Other covers (tinted, clear, whatever) are only used for aesthetic purposes, and they might somewhat reduce the success rate of ANPRs, but that's not the main goal.
The red light camera on Bryant won't catch you with it on. If PA is using what SF is, it should be safe. My impression with these cameras is that they're like the US Postal Police. On the Internet, everyone describes them as unflinching bulldogs of the law. In reality, they're more like Scrappy Doo.
I don't know where you live but I see plate-obscuring covers all the time in Seattle. We have several local toll highways, which is probably related.
It's not much of a solution because these types of things open you up to selective enforcement.
According to a friend who works in administration at a big city police department, most of them don't work.
wow....
In other words, you can opt-out of having your comings and goings monitored... as long as you own at least 1 acre of land (LAH's minimum lot size) in one of the top 10 wealthiest ZIP codes in the country.