This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Making it easy to catch bad guys is enough reason. I don't know how to effectively convince someone that the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. I feel like it should be self-evident, that law enforcement and liberty are mutually exclusive, and that we have things like warrants to allow that infringement on liberty in very narrow circumstances. Dragnet surveillance is warrant-less evidence gathering.
>Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
The easy counter-argument to this, which Mr. Stanks alludes to, is that there's a difference between giving everyone data, and giving law enforcement data.
I mean, one thing you can look at is news stories about the police grabbing the wrong person, trying to find someone who's as much like them as possible - but any example can be rationalized away.
It is self-evident, and they are doublethinking. You can test this by telling them that police should be required to wear always-on body cams. See how they react to that.
Just ask him to show you his bank accounts / unrestricted access to phone / camera in bedroom. It is always funny to see these people bend into pretzels trying to justify why you should not see how much money is on their bank accounts while you are just repeating their own mantra that if they did not do anything illegal, why they are worried about it?
In Canada all the police cars seem to have automated license plate readers these days.
This article explains there was a 2016 law where California won't share local police plate reader data with the feds, so they made a deal in 2024 where Caltrans (dept of transportation) will let Border Patrol pay for it themselves on roads near border crossing like San Diego County.
I'm sort of curious where the law stands on this (I am not a lawyer).
Since it has a license plate on it, it in theory displays some ownership info. Is that enough for me to say, "it's clearly not mine now"? If it didn't, does that give me any right to take something off a public roadway?
Obviously, I know that the letter of the law, and what actually will be enforced, are two different things. Taking something that belongs to CBP would almost definitely be prosecuted in this case, regardless of whether it's legally fair game to do so.
It appears that I can't direct-link to it, but look up case 19S-CR-00528 on public.courts.in.gov - this was a case in which the Supreme Court of Indiana overturned an earlier ruling that removing a GPS monitoring device from your own car, when you weren't aware it was there, was theft.
I assume every vehicle has been tracked for decades now. Remember when they simplified the design of license plates to make them easier for cameras to read? Why they feel the need to hide it though.
In the UK: "A record for all vehicles passing by a camera is stored, including those for vehicles that are not known to be of interest at the time of the read. At present ANPR cameras nationally, submit on average around 60 million ANPR ‘read’ records to national ANPR systems daily." [1] (ANPR = Automatic Number Plate Recognition)
The data is kept for 12 months. So basically if you get onto the police radar for whatever reason they can roughly see how you used your car, and others they know you had access to, in the last 12 months (just saying, hum, hum).
1) If your car is stolen, suddenly none of this capability exists, or is inaccessible to police for some reason. No one can actually just type in your reg and see where it was last seen, seemingly, even though it would be an easy way to locate criminals. And if you think well, thieves will just change the plates - no, stolen vehicles are frequently recovered on their original plates.
2) I keep saying various FB Police pages posting "we found this car X without MOT or tax, last time it was taxed in 2023!" so like...it's been driving for 3 years without anyone noticing? What are all those ANPR cameras for then??
Regarding your second point, I don't think you'd go scotch free but the police wouldn't bother coming to the registered keeper's address and attempt to seize the car. I believe you'd simply get automatic fines for no MOT or no insurance (plus penalty points).
So that's that as long as you don't tweet tendencious things because then they might send several cars to arrest you /s
> “If you’re not doing anything illegal, why worry about it?” said long-time Jacumba resident Allen Stanks, 70.
Glad to see they dug out the most intelligent person to react to this information. It's also incredibly funny because the opposite should also apply to the government; if they're not doing anything illegal then they should have no need to hide their local surveillance network inside of abandoned trailers or other items. Just another reason to toss on the pile for dismantling CBP.
I loved Mr. Stanks follow up of "Privacy?! Why, you post your food on Facebook!". Because what I had for supper and where I've travelled during the day are on exactly the same level of privacy and concern. I have to assume that in the reporter's attempt to have a voice from the pro side and the con side, the best they could find was "if you're not doing anything illegal...".
If people don't have anything to hide ask them how their marriage is and when the last time was they met their mistress, since they drive by there way too often for not having one nearby that location. That line of questioning usually shuts people up, replace response with financials/location/calls/etc when needed. (I know it's a reductio ad absurdum)
That does not look like an abandoned trailer to me.
It’s good to see the Biden administration approved the permits. That should help keep discussions grounded a bit. The story shouldn’t be a political cudgel, since both sides have a hand in it.
People are being manipulated into outrage for political purposes. Many are unaware that previous administrations ( yes, on both sides ) prioritized deportations. The federal machinery in use has been in place over several presidencies and operated in many of the same ways. When given this information, people make less radical outbursts, which is good.
the both sides does not hold water … imagine if Kamala was elected President and did 0.1% of the shit that was done in the last 14 months - like just imagine if she sent military to places where we have actual crime like Houston TX … the country would be literally burning right now. so “both sides” is very played argument I would stay away from
Which proves the outrage is about the method of deportation (black-bag Hispanic looking people, tear up their birth certificate in front of them) and not about the number of people deported.
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also:
>No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
> “If you’re not doing anything illegal, why worry about it?” said long-time Jacumba resident Allen Stanks, 70.
I'm going to grind my teeth into a fine powder.
This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Making it easy to catch bad guys is enough reason. I don't know how to effectively convince someone that the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. I feel like it should be self-evident, that law enforcement and liberty are mutually exclusive, and that we have things like warrants to allow that infringement on liberty in very narrow circumstances. Dragnet surveillance is warrant-less evidence gathering.
> This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think.
Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it.
> the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about.
Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
>Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
The Jews in Amsterdam had nothing to hide ... until they did.
Do you give everybody your tax returns? No? Then you have something to hide.
Do you give everybody your phone records? No? Then you have something to hide.
Do you give everybody your web history? No? Then you have something to hide.
etc.
> Do you give everybody
The easy counter-argument to this, which Mr. Stanks alludes to, is that there's a difference between giving everyone data, and giving law enforcement data.
But Jews-in-Amsterdam is a pretty good example.
I mean, one thing you can look at is news stories about the police grabbing the wrong person, trying to find someone who's as much like them as possible - but any example can be rationalized away.
It is self-evident, and they are doublethinking. You can test this by telling them that police should be required to wear always-on body cams. See how they react to that.
Just ask him to show you his bank accounts / unrestricted access to phone / camera in bedroom. It is always funny to see these people bend into pretzels trying to justify why you should not see how much money is on their bank accounts while you are just repeating their own mantra that if they did not do anything illegal, why they are worried about it?
> “Everyone is talking about privacy, OK. Stop putting everything on Facebook. ‘Here’s a picture of my food.’ Who cares?” said Stanks.
Lol, this is just an old guy that wants to say something, _anything_ to the world
An old guy who doesn't understand the difference between the state surveilling everything you do, and you volunteering some photographs to the world.
Yeah ask this guy how he’d feel if a different party were in power and doing this.
An extra-ominous comment with the numbers in your username.
The answer is always "because law enforcement is usually doing something illegal"
"You're in public space, you can't assume any kind of privacy here. Just don't go out."
Funny, you can plainly see them in street view linked from the EFF map...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/bGcDQ8v8YhvN3f1q7
Here is one in a construction barrel
https://maps.app.goo.gl/bakw7KpzRjSuqpwY6
In Canada all the police cars seem to have automated license plate readers these days.
This article explains there was a 2016 law where California won't share local police plate reader data with the feds, so they made a deal in 2024 where Caltrans (dept of transportation) will let Border Patrol pay for it themselves on roads near border crossing like San Diego County.
Is it illegal to put big cardboard boxes weighed down with rocks in front of these cameras? Asking for a friend.
Flock came to my town recently and I keep daydreaming about drones that can spray/drop paint.
There might be people in your town who own all-black clothing and face masks.
Well, there's a reminder to donate to the EFF again!
Let's Encrypt is goated
I hope to operate one of these networks. Maybe I should apply to Y Combinator. Do they take applications that are too similar to previous applicants?
I've heard those trailers contain 15 lbs of copper wire each.
Scrap metal and sellable parts as well. Most likely a SIM card you can get a bunch of free internet out of too.
It'd be interesting to see what endpoints they submit the data to...
won't they able able to track you down if you start using the SIM though?
They can track the locations where you use that card, and the locations where you use the phone the card was in, before and after the card was in it.
Take this information as you will.
ETA: "use" means "have a battery inserted"
Free trailer
I'm sort of curious where the law stands on this (I am not a lawyer).
Since it has a license plate on it, it in theory displays some ownership info. Is that enough for me to say, "it's clearly not mine now"? If it didn't, does that give me any right to take something off a public roadway?
Obviously, I know that the letter of the law, and what actually will be enforced, are two different things. Taking something that belongs to CBP would almost definitely be prosecuted in this case, regardless of whether it's legally fair game to do so.
It appears that I can't direct-link to it, but look up case 19S-CR-00528 on public.courts.in.gov - this was a case in which the Supreme Court of Indiana overturned an earlier ruling that removing a GPS monitoring device from your own car, when you weren't aware it was there, was theft.
Free SIM card, free NUC running the ALPR DSP software, free Victron solar battery charger/power supply equipment…
I assume every vehicle has been tracked for decades now. Remember when they simplified the design of license plates to make them easier for cameras to read? Why they feel the need to hide it though.
In the UK: "A record for all vehicles passing by a camera is stored, including those for vehicles that are not known to be of interest at the time of the read. At present ANPR cameras nationally, submit on average around 60 million ANPR ‘read’ records to national ANPR systems daily." [1] (ANPR = Automatic Number Plate Recognition)
The data is kept for 12 months. So basically if you get onto the police radar for whatever reason they can roughly see how you used your car, and others they know you had access to, in the last 12 months (just saying, hum, hum).
[1] https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-...
So I'll say two things to that:
1) If your car is stolen, suddenly none of this capability exists, or is inaccessible to police for some reason. No one can actually just type in your reg and see where it was last seen, seemingly, even though it would be an easy way to locate criminals. And if you think well, thieves will just change the plates - no, stolen vehicles are frequently recovered on their original plates.
2) I keep saying various FB Police pages posting "we found this car X without MOT or tax, last time it was taxed in 2023!" so like...it's been driving for 3 years without anyone noticing? What are all those ANPR cameras for then??
This is the police "prioritising".
Regarding your second point, I don't think you'd go scotch free but the police wouldn't bother coming to the registered keeper's address and attempt to seize the car. I believe you'd simply get automatic fines for no MOT or no insurance (plus penalty points).
So that's that as long as you don't tweet tendencious things because then they might send several cars to arrest you /s
> “If you’re not doing anything illegal, why worry about it?” said long-time Jacumba resident Allen Stanks, 70.
Glad to see they dug out the most intelligent person to react to this information. It's also incredibly funny because the opposite should also apply to the government; if they're not doing anything illegal then they should have no need to hide their local surveillance network inside of abandoned trailers or other items. Just another reason to toss on the pile for dismantling CBP.
I loved Mr. Stanks follow up of "Privacy?! Why, you post your food on Facebook!". Because what I had for supper and where I've travelled during the day are on exactly the same level of privacy and concern. I have to assume that in the reporter's attempt to have a voice from the pro side and the con side, the best they could find was "if you're not doing anything illegal...".
It's the privacy equivalent of "She was dressed skimpy in that part of town"
If people don't have anything to hide ask them how their marriage is and when the last time was they met their mistress, since they drive by there way too often for not having one nearby that location. That line of questioning usually shuts people up, replace response with financials/location/calls/etc when needed. (I know it's a reductio ad absurdum)
I don't like it but I can kind of understand hiding it. People change their behavior if it's obvious.
I swear editors intentionally go with the dumbest takes to get rage engagement.
What are the odds Palantir have something to do with this.
99 point 9 recurring, but that wasn't new information.
That does not look like an abandoned trailer to me.
It’s good to see the Biden administration approved the permits. That should help keep discussions grounded a bit. The story shouldn’t be a political cudgel, since both sides have a hand in it.
A pre-emptive "both-sides"?
No, just a fan of people being informed.
People are being manipulated into outrage for political purposes. Many are unaware that previous administrations ( yes, on both sides ) prioritized deportations. The federal machinery in use has been in place over several presidencies and operated in many of the same ways. When given this information, people make less radical outbursts, which is good.
the both sides does not hold water … imagine if Kamala was elected President and did 0.1% of the shit that was done in the last 14 months - like just imagine if she sent military to places where we have actual crime like Houston TX … the country would be literally burning right now. so “both sides” is very played argument I would stay away from
Different bubbles for different folks, I guess. It was a big thing in 2024 that Biden deported more than Trump.
Which proves the outrage is about the method of deportation (black-bag Hispanic looking people, tear up their birth certificate in front of them) and not about the number of people deported.
There's no expectation of privacy in public areas. That's been the law of the land now for a long time.
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also:
>No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Have been the law for a long time too and yet…