[programmertote]

I generally don't like the idea of relying on one private company to track private individual citizens' movement. So, I have an issue with this punishment (although I see that allowing that would also make it harder for automated toll charging systems to collect tolls).

On a related note, when I lived in FL, I often saw cars with this opaque plastic cover on number plates. I think these are installed by the drivers so that they can avoid paying road toll (FL has many road tolls). I also noticed that these drivers tend to be more aggressive in driving than others (that's how I noticed their license plates are covered). Will the same punishment be applied to those drivers?

[wingspar]

Those covers in FL are now fully illegal (Oct 1) along with most license plate frames.

Have a friend who got pulled over recently and given a warning for the clear cover on his plate. Apparently, they can be a felony in some cases.

I recall on an old Top Gear episode years ago, in the UK, people were selling mud in a spray can. You apparently sprayed the mud up the bumper and across the plate so it looks like it’s just slung mud, but it just so happens to block the plate. Plausible deniability in a can…

[snypher]

Sorry for the terrible source, but I always admired the tactical leaf;

https://nypost.com/2022/11/26/unbe-leaf-able-scofflaws-dodge...

[ProllyInfamous]

I think an always-installed bike rack is going to be the "safest" solution.

Here in Tennessee I'm also thinking about making a "frame" which extends out about 12 inches from the rear of the bumper, blocking aerial observation (but still in compliance with Tennessee law, "visible from rear at 100ft").

Our photo tickets aren't legally enforceable (across the entire state, except for automated school/bus citations), but the Flock cameras have really started being deployed over the past year.

Most of our new Flock cameras have additional security cameras prominently recording, nearby (like you'd see in a bigbox parking lot for security). I hope we can legislate these out of existance, pronto.

[jjkaczor]

Just don't keep the can in your boot, uh I mean trunk - plausible deniability would go-out-the-window...

[woah]

Just use natural mud

[tclancy]

Can I hide it in a boot in a trunk in the frunk?

[15155]

> Apparently, they can be a felony in some cases.

Which statute is applicable here?

[saxonww]

The opaque covers (and essentially all license plate decorations, frames, covers, etc.) are illegal as of October 1 in Florida. I believe initially the plan is stop-and-educate, but the law provides for a $500 fine and up to 60 days jail time for obscuring your license plate.

[almosthere]

It is weird to me that we got to a point where we are being literal about the law again, instead of the spirit.

I guess laws should no longer say:

A license plate should be attached to a car.

Instead it should say:

All vehicles that don't display their license plate for cameras of any kind are illegal, the spirit of this law is to make it so we can identify through the number assigned to the vehicle from the state that identifies it is obvious if a picture is taken of the vehicle from the front or the back.

Better yet, judges and legal experts should just stop playing these games with words and figure out a new way to make things that are supposed to be legal, legal.

[buran77]

> It is weird to me that we got to a point where we are being literal about the law again, instead of the spirit.

The "spirit" of any law requiring license plates on vehicles is that the license plate can be read under normal conditions. The letter of the law may have been more generic, although many countries define very precisely everything about the plate, its condition and legibility. So demanding visible plates is exactly in the spirit of the law. What's the point of a license plate that nobody can read?

People exploited the letter of the law by having a license that was illegible somehow. Covered, faded writing, flipped under the motorcycle seat, etc.

> vehicles that don't display their license plate for cameras of any kind are illegal

License plates predate traffic cameras and the requirement for readable plates has been in force in many countries since for almost all that time. The license needs to be visible first and foremost so humans can easily identify a car. It can be police or a witness when someone runs you over.

Cameras automate this so they make abuse far easier. But the need was always there for various legitimate reasons.

Almost no law would survive if everyone was allowed to just take some literal interpretation of their own choice. The attitude that "well technically the law says" is usually shot down by any judge for good reason. Someone could have a lot of fun with your right to "bear arms".

[loeg]

License plates have always been required to be legible; that's the whole point. Obscuring them is clearly against the spirit of the law, whether or not that particular method is specifically codified.

[LorenPechtel]

Yeah. License plate frames started out with a legitimate purpose--plates bend a lot more easily than plates in frames. But they've gotten crazy.

[michaelt]

> All vehicles that don't display their license plate for cameras of any kind are illegal, the spirit of this law is to make it so we can identify through the number assigned to the vehicle from the state that identifies it is obvious if a picture is taken of the vehicle from the front or the back.

Quarter inch high license plates are now legal. It’s hardly the motorist’s fault if the camera is too low resolution :)

Regular license plates are illegal, because they’re unreadable to a type of camera - thermal cameras :)

[gorgoiler]

As aomeone much funnier than me once said, there’s nothing more uniquely American than the ability — nay, the right! — to get off on a technicality.

[Terr_]

Some escape on a technicality and some are doomed on a technicality, and unfortunately the difference depends on how rich and connected you are.

Still, this is arguably a step up from not needing any technicalities at all to get the same result.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Yeah. People getting off on technicalities is the reason legalese exists.

[rolph]

imthinking of a shell game -sort of.

dont obstruct the plate, obfusicate it with bumperstickers that have license plate like fonts, but are clearly not plates to human perceptions.

[deltoidmaximus]

Once I started looking for the plastic plate covers I was actually shocked how common they are. Of course enforcement is so lax these days many people seem to be using a paper temporary plate that they printed out. No word on how many of those are even real, I can't even read the numbers on them through the window.

[fullstop]

Did you see the one which used an electromagnet to hold fake leaves in place? If they got pulled over, they could push a button which would allow the leaves to fall off.

[anonymars]

Need I remind you, 007, that you have a licence to kill, not to break the traffic laws

[nine_k]

Leaves are not ferromagnetic, so they won't stick to an electromagnet. A few small holes with a small pump that constantly sucks the air from them would help stick a real, unmodified leaf to the surface. and release it at will. This would require tampering with the license plate, even though in a very minor way.

[mikestew]

Leaves are not ferromagnetic

Fake leaves, as OP said, probably are.

https://fallplate.com/en/product/fallplate-kit/

[tbyehl]

In my town some of the police cars have darkly tinted plate covers.

[JuniperMesos]

I'm not sure how the cameras used to take pictures of car license plates so that the driver can be identified and required to pay a toll for use of the road, is meaningfully different than a camera used to take pictures of car license plates (and other things in the scene) for the purpose of detecting crime. It's still the government running a camera in public to take pictures of things, including cars with clearly-visible license plates, and then knowing that the car was at a specific location at a specific time.

[tehwebguy]

> On a related note, when I lived in FL, I often saw cars with this opaque plastic cover on number plates.

Daily Show segment on a guy who "uncovers" these in NY including cops' personal vehicles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1J5nuA1QNs

[try_the_bass]

> On a related note, when I lived in FL, I often saw cars with this opaque plastic cover on number plates. I think these are installed by the drivers so that they can avoid paying road toll (FL has many road tolls). I also noticed that these drivers tend to be more aggressive in driving than others (that's how I noticed their license plates are covered).

I've noticed the same thing in my area of CA. Lots of folks with different devices to obscure their plates, and a strong correlation between the obscured plates and very poor or aggressive driving.

I've started to quip that the obscured plates + tinted windows + blacked-out taillights is the "frequent moving violation starter kit".

Or "tell me you violate the rules of the road without telling me you violate the rules of the road".

> Will the same punishment be applied to those drivers?

One could imagine that's actually the targeted demographic, and not the subset of folks trying to circumvent Flock cameras.

[OptionOfT]

I see these plastic covers a lot. Especially here in AZ they get UV damaged fast which makes them opaque.

And the more and more I want one. Not to drive like an ass. I don't. I just want to drive around without being tracked.

[gosub100]

I think flock tracks more than just the number. A plate cover is another piece of entropy that can be used just like browser fingerprinting. The tinfoil hat side of me thinks the camera aspect is a red herring and they are actually using the tire pressure sensors and other junk to do the actual tracking.

[try_the_bass]

> Not to drive like an ass. I don't.

Color me skeptical

[OptionOfT]

This is the physical manifestation of "I've got nothing to hide, so you can track me".

[try_the_bass]

I mean, is it a problem if that's what I believe? In practice I'm not even getting "tracked". No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.

In the off chance someone is looking up that information, it's probably a mistake (i.e. mistaken identity), and seeing where I've been will likely clear that up.

And in the infinitesimal chance it doesn't, I imagine motive would be really hard to establish.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have proper oversight, strong data controls, etc, but I'm not opposed to this kind of tracking on principal alone. It does have real benefits!

But personally, seeing and meeting the kinds of people who oppose this kind of tracking _on principal alone_, I'm immediately suspicious of all of them. But that's definitely bias on my part: I've known many folks in this category from the world of crypto, and 90+% of them are just trying to avoid taxes and/or scrutiny of accountability for whatever scam they're running.

[metadope]

> No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.

Want to spend an hour on the side of the highway while the police search your vehicle?

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article... + https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46196209

> the kinds of people who oppose this kind of tracking _on principal alone_, I'm immediately suspicious of all of them.

The principle is Don't Tread On Me.

[LexiMax]

> No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.

What makes you so incredibly sure that you will never in your lifetime do a single thing that would ever draw this kind of attention, no matter who is pulling the levers of power?