[SirAllCaps]

> I'm surprised there aren't trackers on all cars already, like a 21st century license plate.

Are you referring to a state or government tracker on every vehicle? If so, it seems like you're implying that's a good idea. If that's the case, I hope there's some joke in here I'm missing.

[nixgeek]

License plate readers (LPR) are common in cities and on motorways in UK; there are “Average Speed” zones where the LPR is accomplished by cameras mounted on overhead gantries spanning miles. Speeding tickets can be issued automatically if you break the speed limit between gantries. It’s always been weird to me the US doesn’t do this and often requires a trooper to pull you over and give you a written ticket. Note that not all motorways have this in UK, but those which do, you don’t see anywhere near as much excessive speed.

LPR is also used in UK by the Driver and Vehicle License Agency (DVLA) to oversee taxation of vehicles. No more “tabs” or license discs to display in your front window, it’s all LPR these days.

LPR databases are queryable by the security services and law enforcement — there are enough cameras in cities your location can be pinned down to “within a few streets”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni...

This isn’t a tracker on every vehicle but it’s pretty equivalent for drivers who don’t live in the middle of nowhere where LPR may only be deployed in major towns.

[CSMastermind]

It sounds frankly dystopian, and I hope that this never comes to my country.

The government has no business tracking the movements of its citizens outside of an active criminal investigation and only then within well defined paramaters.

[afavour]

It does feel like a very stereotypically American view to be absolutely aghast at the idea of the government tracking the location of cars while being entirely permissive of private companies doing the same and reselling that data to anyone and everyone that wants it (including the government, ironically)

[akira2501]

Disabling government technology is a crime. Interfering with third party data collection efforts is my absolute right. These are not the same things.

[nixgeek]

In most (if not all?) parts of the US you are legally required to display a license plate and to not obscure it — those tinted covers you see people use are both a “Pull me over if you’re not otherwise busy!” to a lot of State Troopers (at least according to those that I occasionally shoot with on a pistol range), and ineffective outside nighttime (they reflect the IR emitter, but those often aren’t on in daylight).

So, how are you “interfering with third party data collection efforts”, while also meeting your legal requirements (government) obligations to display an unobscured and valid license plate on the vehicle, given the conversation is about ALPR/ANPR and where the tracking is a camera which reads the license plate?

[silverquiet]

That doesn't really sound like a right and if it is you probably signed it away when you bought the car.

[Mountain_Skies]

And that company is free to fight that battle in civil court whereas the government will haul you into criminal court. Pretty big difference.

[CSMastermind]

I'm not cool with private companies tracking my location either, outside of specific scenarios where I've given express permission.

This country absolutely needs stronger consumer protections.

[mulmen]

> It’s always been weird to me the US doesn’t do this and often requires a trooper to pull you over and give you a written ticket.

Very different cultures. The US is still a culture of personal accountability and freedom. If you aren't hurting anyone you can do as you please. The UK skews toward rules for the sake of rules. Sadly the US is also moving in that direction, but mercifully still trails the UK.

[bruce511]

You are right, it's very much a culture thing.

On the US side its very "individual good" focus, whereas in the UK (and Europe in general) its more "community good" focused.

This may be partly a function of density- with higher density comes more human interaction in a smaller space.

The US also had a long period of no, or minimal govt, over very wide areas. This lead to a culture of personal security etc (think Westerns with people carrying guns).

Most Americans see govt at best as a necessary evil, who is actively working "against my interest." Whereas most Europeans see govt as an effective way to "promote community interest". (I'm referencing govt as a concept here, not as a political or party construct. In other words you might be against the people currently in govt, but still appreciate that there should be a govt.)

[mulmen]

I don’t agree with your stereotype of Americans. We very much believe in our institutions.

[akira2501]

It's the long tail of free speech. You can't stop someone from publishing information about how to defeat such a device. It would become common knowledge very quickly and would be used easily by criminals with specialized toolsets available on several different levels of marketplace.

In the UK, you can much more easily wrap all that up, and deny existence to those markets and even to import of that equipment.

And it's beyond culture. The UK holds an active monarchy and a hereditary house of parliament. The citizen simply does not have the same status and is unavoidably a "subject."

[TeaBrain]

Hereditary peerage was ended with the House of Lords Act 1999.

[Ao7bei3s]

I don't know anything about UK law, but apparently the act still allows for 92 hereditary peers[1], and indeed:

"The most recent grant of a hereditary peerage was in 2019 for the youngest child of Elizabeth II, Prince Edward"[2]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer

[TeaBrain]

I was specifically referring to hereditary peerage in the House of Lords, which was almost completely done away with. At around 13% of members, the chamber is largely no longer a chamber of hereditary peers. Hereditary peerage and hereditary peerage participation in the house of lords are separate. There are around 800 hereditary peers, but since 1999, only 92 of these hereditary titles have a spot in the house of lords. The hereditary peerage granted to Prince Edward is not one of the 92 hereditary peerages in the House of Lords, so it doesn't allow him participation.