A journalist drove 300 miles through rural Virginia, then filed public records requests with law enforcement agencies to see what surveillance footage they had of his car. He received responses from various agencies, including small town police, sheriff's departments, and university police. Some agencies had no footage, while others had license plate reader (LPR) data or images from traffic cameras. The experience highlighted the patchwork nature of public surveillance, with data retention policies and access procedures varying widely. While some agencies promptly provided information, others were unresponsive or claimed exemptions. The experiment ultimately revealed the growing, yet inconsistent, presence of automated surveillance in even rural areas and raised questions about data security and public access to this information.
EFF warns that age verification laws, ostensibly designed to restrict access to adult content, pose a serious threat to online privacy. While initially targeting pornography sites, these laws are expanding to encompass broader online activities, such as accessing skincare products, potentially requiring users to upload government IDs to third-party verification services. This creates a massive database of sensitive personal information vulnerable to breaches, government surveillance, and misuse by private companies, effectively turning age verification into a backdoor for widespread online monitoring. The EFF argues that these laws are overbroad, ineffective at their stated goals, and disproportionately harm marginalized communities.
HN commenters express concerns about the slippery slope of age verification laws, starting with porn and potentially expanding to other online content and even everyday purchases. They argue that these laws normalize widespread surveillance and data collection, creating honeypots for hackers and potentially enabling government abuse. Several highlight the ineffectiveness of age gates, pointing to easy bypass methods and the likelihood of children accessing restricted content through other means. The chilling effect on free speech and the potential for discriminatory enforcement are also raised, with some commenters drawing parallels to authoritarian regimes. Some suggest focusing on better education and parental controls rather than restrictive legislation. The technical feasibility and privacy implications of various verification methods are debated, with skepticism towards relying on government IDs or private companies.
A federal court ruled the NSA's warrantless searches of Americans' data under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unconstitutional. The court found that the "backdoor searches," querying a database of collected communications for information about Americans, violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. This landmark decision significantly limits the government's ability to search this data without a warrant, marking a major victory for digital privacy. The ruling specifically focuses on querying data already collected, not the collection itself, and the government may appeal.
HN commenters largely celebrate the ruling against warrantless searches of 702 data, viewing it as a significant victory for privacy. Several highlight the problematic nature of the "backdoor search" loophole and its potential for abuse. Some express skepticism about the government's likely appeals and the long road ahead to truly protect privacy. A few discuss the technical aspects of 702 collection and the challenges in balancing national security with individual rights. One commenter points out the irony of the US government criticizing other countries' surveillance practices while engaging in similar activities domestically. Others offer cautious optimism, hoping this ruling sets a precedent for future privacy protections.
The Nevada Supreme Court closed a loophole that allowed police to circumvent state law protections against civil asset forfeiture. Previously, law enforcement would seize property under federal law, even for violations of state law, bypassing Nevada's stricter requirements for forfeiture. The court ruled this practice unconstitutional, reaffirming that state law governs forfeitures based on state law violations, even when federal agencies are involved. This decision strengthens protections for property owners in Nevada and makes it harder for law enforcement to seize assets without proper due process under state law.
HN commenters largely applaud the Nevada Supreme Court decision limiting "equitable sharing," viewing it as a positive step against abusive civil forfeiture practices. Several highlight the perverse incentives created by allowing law enforcement to bypass state restrictions by collaborating with federal agencies. Some express concern that federal agencies might simply choose not to pursue cases in states with stronger protections, thus hindering the prosecution of actual criminals. One commenter offers personal experience of successfully challenging a similar seizure, emphasizing the difficulty and expense involved even when ultimately victorious. Others call for further reforms to civil forfeiture laws at the federal level.
Summary of Comments ( 255 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43504413
Hacker News users discuss the implications of widespread police surveillance and the journalist's experience requesting footage of his own vehicle. Some express concern about the lack of transparency and potential for abuse, highlighting the ease with which law enforcement can track individuals. Others question the legality and oversight of such data collection practices, emphasizing the need for stricter regulations. A few commenters suggest technical countermeasures, such as license plate covers, while acknowledging their limited effectiveness and potential legal ramifications. The practicality and cost-effectiveness of storing vast amounts of surveillance data are also debated, with some arguing that the data's usefulness in solving crimes doesn't justify the privacy intrusion. Several users share personal anecdotes of encountering ALPRs (Automatic License Plate Readers), reinforcing the pervasiveness of this technology. Finally, the discussion touches upon the challenges of balancing public safety with individual privacy rights in an increasingly surveilled society.
The Hacker News post "I asked police to send me their public surveillance footage of my car" generated a moderate discussion with several interesting points raised in the comments. Several commenters focused on the practicalities and legalities surrounding the request and the broader implications of such surveillance.
One commenter discussed the variability of police responses to such requests, noting that some departments are cooperative while others are obstructive, even when legally obligated to provide the information. They highlighted the importance of public records laws and advocated for utilizing resources like MuckRock to facilitate these requests. This commenter also touched on the disparate impact of ALPRs (Automatic License Plate Readers) based on geographic location, suggesting that smaller towns might have less comprehensive or easily retrievable data compared to larger cities.
Another commenter shared a personal anecdote about their experience obtaining ALPR data from their local police department. They emphasized the ease with which they received the information, contrasting it with the difficulties described in the original article. This difference highlighted the inconsistency in how different police departments handle these requests.
A significant thread developed around the legality of license plate scanning and the legal precedent surrounding it. Commenters discussed the Fourth Amendment implications and the varying interpretations by courts across the US. Some argued that tracking vehicles without probable cause constituted a violation of privacy, while others cited court decisions that have upheld the practice. The discussion also delved into the potential for abuse of this technology and the lack of clear regulations governing its use.
The technical aspects of ALPR data were also explored, with commenters discussing the types of data collected, the storage methods employed, and the potential for inaccuracies in the data. One commenter pointed out the possibility of "ghost plates" – misreads of license plates leading to incorrect data being associated with a vehicle. This raised concerns about the reliability of the data and the potential for misidentification.
Finally, some comments offered practical advice for individuals seeking to obtain their own ALPR data, recommending resources like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and providing tips on framing the request to law enforcement agencies. This practical focus complemented the broader discussion on legal and societal implications.
Overall, the comments section offered a multifaceted perspective on the use of ALPRs and the public's access to the data they collect, covering legal, technical, and practical considerations. The variety of experiences shared by commenters highlighted the inconsistencies in law enforcement practices and the need for greater clarity and regulation in this area.