LPR In The News
- Thread starter samplenhold
- Start date
- Nov 25, 2016
- 850
- 2,326
It's the usual FUD concerning LPR cameras, written by reporters who have no idea how they really work.
I especially like this statistic that keeps being pushed out: "Less than 0.3% of license plate reader “hits” led to an investigative lead related to an associated crime." So apparently LPR cameras need to somehow know in advance that a car has been stolen before it scans the plate.
As I have explained to many people: you can't put the genie back in the bottle. An LPR camera is nothing more than a regular security camera with optical character recognition. That's why I pull out my iPhone and show them how Rekor Go turns it into an LPR camera. That always shocks them.
I especially like this statistic that keeps being pushed out: "Less than 0.3% of license plate reader “hits” led to an investigative lead related to an associated crime." So apparently LPR cameras need to somehow know in advance that a car has been stolen before it scans the plate.
As I have explained to many people: you can't put the genie back in the bottle. An LPR camera is nothing more than a regular security camera with optical character recognition. That's why I pull out my iPhone and show them how Rekor Go turns it into an LPR camera. That always shocks them.
Flintstone61
Known around here
I use my own eyes, and make my own decision on which plate I collect. Only suspicious vehicles that are not Residents, Usually at night, that qualify as loitering or lurking or casing.
If a crime happens with one of my saved plates, then I can give that video or photo, to the sheriff, So my machine isn't attached to any company which could share my plates.
But my use case scenario is private property, and I'm not capturing every car going down the street.
If a crime happens with one of my saved plates, then I can give that video or photo, to the sheriff, So my machine isn't attached to any company which could share my plates.
But my use case scenario is private property, and I'm not capturing every car going down the street.
- Nov 25, 2016
- 850
- 2,326
You seem to have the advantage of low traffic past your property, so LPC instead of LPR is entirely appropriate. An average of 1000 vehicles a day pass my home, so LPR is necessary. But having said that, I don't share my LPR records or images with anyone unless it is relevant to a crime committed on my street. 99.9999% of my plate captures eventually roll off the machine and are deleted. I make no attempt at long-term archiving.
So according to the authors of that article, my LPR cameras are a "failure". They can tell that to my neighbors whose daughter was targeted by a wanted felon (now serving time in prison) after my cameras provided the license plate of his stolen vehicle.
while not LPR per se, this is interesting...
City council proposal requires cameras outside certain Houston businesses in order to fight crime - ABC13 Houston
City council proposal requires cameras outside certain Houston businesses in order to fight crime - ABC13 Houston
Another great news link and do have the same questions and concerns noted by the other council members. The people in this forum don't need to be convinced how much value security cameras offer. People in this thread probably have more cameras installed at their homes right now than what the news article is proposing!
There are just some things where the Government and the taxes from the public should be used.
The problem comes down to if you make this some kind of law / ordinance who decides how much a company needs to spend?? $1.00 ~ $1000.00???
Who is says what brand, model, location?
Who is paying for the added electrical bill along with paying for storage and how is retention going to be handled??? There are hundreds of things this county will need to iron out because on the surface this is easy to do.
But, finding a balance of cost, privacy, and quality of video good luck!
sebastiantombs
Known around here
Plus we all know how criminals are afraid of surveillance cameras, NOT!
I'm not advocating for a police state or heavy government surveillance, but I am surprised we still have 20% of motorists uninsured. It would be super simple for government to install LPR, and require insurance companies to report which vehicles are covered. Then every 5th car that comes back with no insurance would be easy to capture. Again, not advocating for this, only surprised it hasn't happened already.
Instead I received a random audit asking for proof of insurance on a vehicle I wasn't driving. I wrote back (because government requires snail mail in the year 2022) that I couldn't provide proof because I didn't insure the car that wasn't being driven. They sent another letter saying I only had 30 more days to provide proof or insurance, to which I wrote back saying the same thing; they won't get proof because I didn't have it insured. DMV issued a citation for uninsured vehicle by default. In Oregon it's legal to have an uninsured car if it isn't driven on public roads. I had to plead not guilty (by mail) and was given a court date to plead my case (by phone) with a judge. The evidence I provided the judge was my testimony that I had parked the truck for 6 months and had not driven it. Judge said "based on testimony I'm dismissing the citation because the truck was not driven on public roads". What a fiasco for no reason.
My point is, Oregon is already doing the equivalent of random searches for insurance. While I think it's sufficient to enforce by regular traffic stops for infractions, I'd rather have LPR and a database search than a default citation issued followed by months of back and forth.
Instead I received a random audit asking for proof of insurance on a vehicle I wasn't driving. I wrote back (because government requires snail mail in the year 2022) that I couldn't provide proof because I didn't insure the car that wasn't being driven. They sent another letter saying I only had 30 more days to provide proof or insurance, to which I wrote back saying the same thing; they won't get proof because I didn't have it insured. DMV issued a citation for uninsured vehicle by default. In Oregon it's legal to have an uninsured car if it isn't driven on public roads. I had to plead not guilty (by mail) and was given a court date to plead my case (by phone) with a judge. The evidence I provided the judge was my testimony that I had parked the truck for 6 months and had not driven it. Judge said "based on testimony I'm dismissing the citation because the truck was not driven on public roads". What a fiasco for no reason.
My point is, Oregon is already doing the equivalent of random searches for insurance. While I think it's sufficient to enforce by regular traffic stops for infractions, I'd rather have LPR and a database search than a default citation issued followed by months of back and forth.
An awful lot of cars are not registered, not insured.
Does your state not do this? Our police force has APLR on I would say 25% of their cars and they are constantly scanning and they get alerts on their laptops if a car is not registered. The DMV also checks yearly when you renew if you have insurance for the car and will deny tags if you are not. That info is again pushed into their LRP database and provides alerts.
Don't think they have this, but I don't know. I do know they don't verify the insurance information you give them. I could say my car is insured by Mickey Mouse under policy #1, and they let me renew the tags.
Flintstone61
Known around here
in Mn , to renew Stickers, you have to show them a current Insurance card, or an electronic insurance card from your providers App.
Oh shit thats right, mine is due in Sept.
Oh shit thats right, mine is due in Sept.
Nashville council passes law barring license plate reader use for anti-abortion law enforcement
The ordinance bars the use of license plate readers for "assisting with enforcing laws outlawing abortion or ... interstate travel to obtain abortion."
www.tennessean.com
Gargoile
Getting comfortable
So what happens if a pregnant life form steals a car to go across state lines for an abortion and then drives back to Nashville? Is this a get out of jail free card?Nashville council passes law barring license plate reader use for anti-abortion law enforcement
The ordinance bars the use of license plate readers for "assisting with enforcing laws outlawing abortion or ... interstate travel to obtain abortion."www.tennessean.com
Might be enforceable for law enforcement, but a private person can record anything. Any evidence collected can be admitted in court.
- Nov 25, 2016
- 850
- 2,326
I've had many conversations with people who learn about my LPR cameras, and who then describe in detail all the tricks they plan to use to obscure their license plates to keep from being tracked by some nebulous government or corporate entity. I just laugh, and say:
"Go right ahead and do that. You know who won't care? The police. They don't care. They don't care about your minor little sins. They don't care where you go to church, or where you shop, or if you're sleeping with your spouse's best friend. No one cares but you, or maybe your spouse. And assuming the police did want to track you, they have far better tools at their disposal than LPR cameras.
The police do care about finding stolen cars, and stopping the people driving them. They do care about finding a violent criminal who is fleeing from authorities. They do care about solving real crimes, not the imagined little crimes that you think they care about. That's why the police use LPR cameras.
So go ahead and obscure your license plate. Assuming you don't get pulled over by the police for doing so (as these techniques are glaringly obvious with even casual inspection), you might learn that there is someone who appreciates you going to that effort: the person who carjacks you at gunpoint, or steals your car from your driveway. He will be very grateful that you obscured your plate, because that will make it that much harder for the police to find him."
- Nov 25, 2016
- 850
- 2,326
Sometimes I wonder if the people in the EFF really have any clue just how quickly camera technology is advancing. Within a decade some manufacturer will market a cloud-based LPR camera, and then all of this weeping and wailing about the potential abuses of LPR technology by big companies will become irrelevant. Homeowners everywhere will be installing them.
We're halfway there already. I've tested the Wyze Cam OG Telephoto. In daylight, from about 30 feet away, it has no problem at all imaging license plates of vehicles passing by at 25 m.p.h. That's a $34 camera. If Wyze were to increase the optical zoom to 10X, and give users the ability to set the shutter speed, it could be used for LPC from 70 to 80 feet away, day or night. Add another decade of processing power advances, and a low-cost consumer LPR camera will be one click away on Amazon.
Another thing is the assumption that wealthy privileged people don't worry about privacy in their desire to fight crime, and that underprivileged people are much more concerned about their privacy being violated. That is one of the most insulting arguments made against LPR cameras. Do you know what people living in low-income neighborhoods care about? Not being victimized by criminals, just like everyone else. They support LPR cameras. They want to live in a safe neighborhood just like everyone else. The ones arguing against LPR cameras, for the most part, are (surprise!) people who have the resources to insulate themselves from the consequences of endemic neighborhood crime. I assure you that the EFF spokesman doesn't worry about being mugged or robbed or assaulted on a regular basis on the street he lives on. That, my friend, is what privilege is all about.