License Plate-Scanning Company Violates Privacy of Millions of California Driver...
source link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/02/24/2126233/license-plate-scanning-company-violates-privacy-of-millions-of-california-drivers-argues-class-action
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
License Plate-Scanning Company Violates Privacy of Millions of California Drivers, Argues Class Action
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 20 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!
"If you drive a car in California, you may be in for a payday thanks to a lawsuit alleging privacy violations by a Texas company," report SFGate:
The 2021 lawsuit, given class-action status in September, alleges that Digital Recognition Network is breaking a California law meant to regulate the use of automatic license plate readers. DRN, a Fort Worth-based company, uses plate-scanning cameras to create location data for people's vehicles, then sells that data to marketers, car repossessors and insurers.
What's particularly notable about the case is the size of the class. The court has established that if you're a California resident whose license plate data was collected by DRN at least 15 times since June 2017, you're a class member. The plaintiff's legal team estimates that the tally includes about 23 million people, alleging that DRN cameras were mounted to cars on public roads. The case website lets Californians check whether their plates were scanned.
Barring a settlement or delay, the trial to decide whether DRN must pay a penalty to those class members will begin on May 17 in San Diego County Superior Court...
The company's cameras scan 220 million plates a month, its website says, and customers can use plate data to "create comprehensive vehicle stories."
A lawyer for the firm representing class members told SFGATE Friday that his team will try to show DRN's business is a "mass surveillance program."
-
›
-
Why does anyone file a class action suit? Because some lawyers said it was a good idea because they smell a payday. The 23 million potential class action members, however, will get enough money to buy a McDonald's cheeseburger, if they're lucky.
-
That's one cheeseburger more than they would have otherwise. More importantly, it is tens or hundreds millions in cost for that company.
-
The most recent class-action settlement I was involved with paid me $1,400 out of the blue.
-
The big benefit of class action lawsuits is not the payout but the deterrent effect.
Companies know that government regulators are toothless, but they live in great fear of law firms.
America has outsourced the enforcement of corporate regulations to the private sector.
-
I received $92 from Apple for their throttling settlement.
-
It's not getting a payday for you or me (my car was scanned 34 times since I first owned it), it's about punishing companies like this that are clearly doing wrong.
That's the only way they learn. Well, maybe also if we imprison the CEO, but that will never realistically happen.
-
-
The problem is that they sell something that does not belong to them: Your daily drive.
-
So what's the problem?
It looks like they are in violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1798.90.5, Section iii. The Notice Requirement (it is long, so I will not post it here).
The law provides specific remedy: "An individual harmed by this statute may bring a civil suit and recover 1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500, 2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law, 3) reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred, and 4) other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate." -
DRN, a Fort Worth-based company, uses plate-scanning cameras to create location data for people's vehicles, then sells that data to marketers, car repossessors and insurers.
I you or I followed people around like this it would be called stalking. -
In the 1960s, the supreme court ruled that the right to privacy is implied by multiple amendments to the constitution.
-
The Supreme Court also found in U.S. v Moore-Bush (and others) that there is NO expectation of privacy for actions that occur in public. This is also the basis for the "photography is not a crime" movement, as well as the "plain view" doctrine used by law enforcement.
-
Among other considerations, the point of a lawsuit like this is to determine whether or not those things apply to the case at hand. In my mind, "photography" and "plain view" as they are reasonably understood are not what is happening here. Neither of those can amass a large collection of data on millions of individuals, for example.
-
The state is compelling you to take actions in public (display a license plate), and then a private company is aggregating those compelled actions to infer what you do in private. The problem isn't the pictures of the license plates.
-
-
-
-
I had a cop get very excited about an ALRP system I was working on. It was officially for finding people with expired insurance, and ALPR programs were partially funded by insurance companies.
You'd have an ALPR vehicle not even driving around, just parked and scanning, and handing off the task of pulling people over to other cars. You know what happened? They stopped using the system that way, because it created too much work dealing with expired tags.
What got him excited was expanding the system to multiple vehicles and driving around parking lots all over the city, logging everything so he could track everyone's movements and try to correlate them with crime patterns to create suspect lists. He had absolutely no conception of why that might be wrong.
-
Because criminals always use parking lots, because every criminal owns a car? It's obvious that; owns a car, drove car to a parking lot, committed a crime; won't identify one-time criminals and won't include the most common criminal archetype: Teenagers.
The cop's attitude that surveillance will provide all the answers, of course means his car should report its location (to a third party), so people know he isn't committing a crime.
-
>The cop's attitude that surveillance will provide all the answers, of course means his car should report its location (to a third party), so people know he isn't committing a crime.
They're almost all tracked these days via their vehicle and with newer radios even the portable on their hip. This does not go to a third party, because then you'd be able to correlate their location and velocity with their dispatch status and note they speed like demons all over the place when not on urgent emergency calls.
-
-
It's a question of proportionality. Collecting and storing everyone's data all the time is massive over-reach. Having the camera look for specific vehicles known to have e.g. expired insurance, and then alerting a specific law enforcement agent when they get a hit, is much less intrusive.
-
-
I don't think this scanning should be against the law.
Privacy is not about what you do in public.
When you're out and about, people can see you. They can report on what you do. They can even take and publish photographs and videos of what you do.
It makes no sense at all to me to require the state to officially "not know" the things you do in full view of the world.-
I think it should. Seeing something in public and talking about is fine. But compiling everything and feeding large databases and compiling files about someone is considered stalking, if you are an individual and do it to another individual. Why it should be legal, if you are a company and do it for many people and then sell the results to the highest bidder needs some very careful argument. So me, it's mass stalking.
-
Yeah for all of human history we have had an inherent and inalienable right to not be mass-surveilled (while not having any protection against stuff like rape or murder). Only now has it become possible to violate that right, and you can bet your least favorite politician is salivating at the thought.
-
-
While i agree with what you are saying - i take issue that in order to effectively move around in public we are required to display a unique identifier which was never intended to be a tracking device, and this tech turns it into effectively a tracking device.
if we went the other side and a state tried to require GPS trackers be put in every plate issued and the telemetry tracked and stored - that would get killed in the courts so fast, as it should...
-
Great argument.
-
-
-
I have AT&T service. So you're not going to be tracking much.
-
-
How do we opt out?
-
Its not the state doing it. I think at the very least this for profit company should have to pay me a fair price for using my unique identifier that I paid for with my own hard earned money, and for generating the events they report on.
-
-
by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Saturday February 24, 2024 @07:22PM (#64266358)
Automatic license plate readers can be used legally to detect license plates where tax or insurance has not been paid, license plates of cars involved in a traffic violation, fake license plates that shouldn't exist, and license plates of cars reported stolen.
There is often a police car near the ALPR, or the ALPR is in the police car, so if your license plate is one where tax or insurance has not been paid, they will follow you and stop you immediately. And speeding cameras, red light cameras may have one. But the biggest reason is to catch uninsured drivers.-
>Automatic license plate readers can be used legally to detect license plates where tax or insurance has not been paid, license plates of cars involved in a traffic violation, fake license plates that shouldn't exist, and license plates of cars reported stolen.
The way it should be done. My opinion is that the systems should not be able to do mass collection for later use, they should only be recording 'hits' against a database of plates where the car is known not to be on the roads legally - in addition
-
Both "1984" and "V for Vendetta" were projections of British tendencies... (when i first read 1984 i thought it was about the Soviet Union / Eastern block and only later did i learn who wrote it and when and why)
I thought it was overblown, but then during Covid to read how the brits were informing on eachother for being out during curfew or "going for a second run" when only one bout of exercise was allowed. (e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-en... [bbc.com] )
To be "just a touch" dramatic: why did the West even both
-
-
-
But none of the three cars in my household were scanned even once! Unfair!
-
My 2015 car was never scanned either. My husband's 2017 car was scanned 19 times.
-
-
The only rights you have are the ones Corporate tells the government you have.
-
It's just a license plate, am I right.
Somewhere along the line, they are getting access to the database of owner names, addresses, etc.
How else can they correlate plates to ownership for "marketers, car repossessors and insurers"?
Seems to me that's where the real stink is coming from.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK