[forgotAgain]

I have to disagree with those who say this isn't news. It was news to me and will, I believe, be news to most others as well. The only time before this that I heard about using EZ pass for anything other than tolls was a few years ago when I read about some feasibility work on the concept of traffic flow optimization being done around Ithaca, NY.

I do wonder why they haven't been used yet to track speeding violations. Speed cameras are being installed in Manhattan. EZ passes are supposed to be used in one car only so it can't be lack of ability to isolate the user that's stopping it.

For years I've been keeping my EZ pass in a static electricity bag when I'm not anticipating going through tolls. I'll definitely continue to do so. At least until it becomes illegal.

[Anechoic]

I do wonder why they haven't been used yet to track speeding violations.

This question was answered for me by a Maryland DOT person a few back during a tour of one of their operations center. The upshot is that the intended purpose of EZ-pass and other toll systems are for improved traffic flow, there is a lot of DOT involvement and the DOT wants to encourage folks to use them.

If those toll systems were to be used for speed enforcement, people would be discouraged from using them, which hurts the DOT's objective. Furthermore (and this is probably the bigger reason), since the DOT is deeply involved in deploying and monitoring the system, they would be subject to subpoenas by offenders challenging their speeding tickets and the DOT absolutely wants no part of that.

[616c]

My father is an attorney in NJ, and told me growing up as the system was first implemented in the tri-state it was off the table once this started to happen, on a large group of lawyers were vocal about making it very painful for the NJ and tristate DOT groups once they went too far.

I am not sure if I remembered this incorrectly but I am sure there were serious lawsuits in the tri-state, and lawyers were lining up to stick it to the states for it, but I could be wrong. Anyone find/know of data about this?

[amatix]

Similarly in New Zealand, the highways agency isn't interested in catching people who are speeding. They certainly help the police with live incidents and co-operate on lots of levels, but they don't keep camera footage forever or feed data streams of toll/traffic-management users to Police. "It's not our business".

[PaulHoule]

It isn't possible to give automated speeding tickets in New York at this time because our law requires that a ticket be given to a driver instead of a vehicle.

It's different in California, Arizona and many other states -- in those states red light and speed cameras are legal. There is talk of changing the law in NY because some municipalities want more money, but us New Yorkers see what goes on in other states and we don't like it.

It NY you need to be given a ticket by a police officer who observed you speeding, because otherwise you don't have a positive ID on the driver. EZ-Pass identifies the car, but they couldn't decide if it were me, my wife or somebody else driving.

[bri3d]

In many states this is circumvented by taking a picture of the driver.

Here in CO you receive a nice piece of mail asking if the pictured driver was you. The process to contest the driver's identity is very straightforward, presumably to reduce the inevitable enormous load on the court system.

The obvious loophole is that if someone who isn't the registered owner drives the car, they can speed and run lights with as much impunity as they could pre-cameras. Especially if the other driver is named on the insurance, there's nothing illegal about loaning your car to someone else long-term.

[mkopinsky]

In NYC at least, they do give red light tickets by camera/mail. I think it is like a parking ticket in that the responsibility is to the owner of the car. I assume it carries no points as well for that reason.

[001sky]

One issue is you can put the thing in a lead box or whatever until you need it for a toll. there is no requirement that it be available. so its easily thwarted as an enforcement mechanism. one could also envision equal protection lawsuits or what not related to this as well.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>I have to disagree with those who say this isn't news.

It was never kept a secret in Houston that toll-tags were used to collect data for the real-time traffic map, this system is decades old. http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/aviinfo/avi-tech.html

>EZ passes are supposed to be used in one car only so it can't be lack of ability to isolate the user that's stopping it.

A car may have more than one user.

>For years I've been keeping my EZ pass in a static electricity bag when I'm not anticipating going through tolls. I'll definitely continue to do so. At least until it becomes illegal.

Try an Altoids Tin instead.

[forgotAgain]

A car may have more than one user.

With traffic enforcement cameras in New York the violations are issued to the owner of the car. They don't try to identify the person who was actually driving. Because they don't identify the driver the summons doesn't count against anyone's license.

[fnordfnordfnord]

The Texas legislature recently made the cameras illegal here, but even before that, a 'ticket' was only a civil matter. They would make a note on your credit report against you if you failed to pay.

[tlrobinson]

Even tickets issued by officeres wouldn't be available to your insurance company, or just the speed cameras?

[fnordfnordfnord]

Oh, no. The regular ticket business is booming, as usual.

[emddudley]

NY EZ passes do not fit in Altoids tins. The pass is close to square, and its side is about the length of the long side of the tin.

[canvia]

Do you work for Altoids? (mostly joking)

[fnordfnordfnord]

No, but I am an electronics hardware geek, so Altoids tins are pretty much my second favorite thing.

[oakwhiz]

Not all antistatic bags seem to block RF. You might want to double check yours, or consider upgrading to tinfoil.

[stcredzero]

...consider upgrading to tinfoil.

Hearing this is almost never a sign for optimism.

[coldtea]

Tinfoil as sarcasm would have made sense if what he feared (the extra tracking) was NOT happening. You know, like we used to mock people fearing aliens reading their mind and such.

Yet, this very news proves that it DOES happen.

So not only was the sarcasm misplaced, but he is in the right. Sure, one might believe that "well, a little tracking never hurt nobody" but that's another matter altogether.

[oakwhiz]

Are you saying that my post was sarcastic? That's strange, because I wasn't being sarcastic - my post was entirely based in fact. Tinfoil, or aluminum foil, is a cheap, commonly available, easily malleable conductor that is actually a pretty good RF attenuator. Some people are unaware that antistatic bags are not always good RF attenuators. If you intend to control when a device is permitted to receive radio waves, a simple and more effective solution is to merely wrap that device in aluminum foil.

I suppose this is sort of a Poe's law[0] effect in which sarcasm mocking security as a form of paranoia, and actual advice for improving one's own security, are now indistinguishable from one another.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

[anigbrowl]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[saalweachter]

> EZ passes are supposed to be used in one car

This is not strictly true. When registering a second EZ pass for a second car, I was told that we could use either EZ pass in either car. The EZ passes were tied to the account and the cars were tied to the account and that was all that mattered.

For another use case, I was told that I am allowed to take my own EZ pass with me in a taxi cab, and request that the driver use it for tolls instead of his own.

[IgorPartola]

Speeding cameras and other ways to ticket people automatically are problematic in the US. See, in Europe, the ticket can be given to the owner of the car. The problem is simple: take a picture of the license plate, look up the owner, send ticket.

In the US, the law says that the only person that gets the ticket is the driver which != owner in a lot of cases. Because of this, places that have speeding cameras have to employ people to look at pictures of the person driving and compare them to pictures of the license of the owner, or try to identify the driver by some other means. Needless to say this is expensive. On top of that, states like North Carolina require that all or most proceeds from speeding cameras tickets go to education, and not the police department. Thus, the police department has no reason to shell out $100k/year on running a camera to see none of the profits. They'd rather hire an extra officer to give out tickets manually.

That could be different for tickets given for average speed violations, as you could give them to the driver, but that would likely create a traffic backup nightmare.

[kalleboo]

> See, in Europe, the ticket can be given to the owner of the car.

Europe is a big place. In Sweden, the traffic camera has to catch the driver's face. If you cover your face so you can't be identified, they won't serve you with the ticket. They do exactly as you say - employ a room of people to compare photos to the driver's license database. http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/dolj-ansiktet-slipp-boter

[mrud]

It depends in Europe. In some countries, e.g. Germany it is like in the US, e.g. you can contest a ticket and say that the driver was a relative from another country. You can also say that you weren't the driver but you don't know who used your car. In this case you typically are forced to keep a drivers log for this vehicle for the future.

[jorgem]

>> In this case you typically are forced to keep a drivers log for this vehicle for the future.

Really?? You're found not-guilty, but you are still punished?

[nmeofthestate]

Presumably the log is required for any vehicle that's used by multiple drivers, like a delivery van. The log seems a reasonable legal requirement.

[mcantelon]

>I do wonder why they haven't been used yet to track speeding violations.

I'd guess the intelligence use of it is likely more important to the powers that be to risk a backlash against using it to catch speeders.

[diminoten]

Why are you against having your car tracked? You're in public, aren't you? Why do you think you have a right to privacy in public?

[ChuckMcM]

Can we just not go there? There is a qualitative difference between "being in public" and "being recorded while in public" and "being recorded in public over an extended period of time."

You take a picture on the beach and catch me in the frame, I'm totally fine with that, you take pictures of that beach every day for a year and then put IDs on every 'face' so that you've got a history of everyone who has been to the beach, I'm much less comfortable with that, you create an API so that someone can send you a picture of a face and you will give them the history of that face at the beach for the last 12 months, I've got a huge problem with that.

[Retric]

FYI: You where just trolled. Sure, it feels go to respond, but it's also a waste of everyone's time to read a troll and the responses. It also promotes them making more comments like that.

Aka: Don't feed the trolls.

[diminoten]

I'm not a troll, I just know there is no legal precedent for this public privacy idea, and that there is no moral grounds for it as a human right.

Someone who's been around here as long as you have should know better than to cry troll so quickly.

[fnordfnordfnord]

What kind of stuff do you buy at stores? Mind if I have a look? I mean, you're in public when you buy the stuff. Please post your checking account and credit card statements in the reply. Thanks.

[diminoten]

I'll gladly tell you whenever I buy things. My checking account and credit card statements are private, however (this isn't an argument against privacy, don't mistake it as such).

Here are the last... 10 things I bought:

EZPass - $70.00 Roll20.net - $9.99 Potbelly - $4.98 Gold's Gym - $19.99 Potbelly - $4.98 Potbelly - $4.98 Pearl Dive (it's a bar) - $12.90 Chipotle - $3.13 Big Hunt (bar) - $8.00 Madhatter (bar) - $13.90

If you want more, come follow me around a bit. You wouldn't be breaking any law, after all. The fact that I go to potbelly each day, have a Gold's Gym subscription, and went to 3 bars over the last few days isn't private. None of it.

I value privacy, but I also know I don't always have it.

[jlgreco]

He uses ATMs in public too right? I also want to know his debit card PIN. What right does he have to privacy?

[fnordfnordfnord]

Even if he had that right, why would he want to use it?

[jlgreco]

He's probably hiding something nefarious from us. I can think of no possible other reason to desire privacy.

[jack-r-abbit]

Right. Because some computer somewhere knowing that yesterday I drove 90mph on the I-5 from LA to San Diego is exactly the same as you knowing my credit card number. Got it.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Redact the account number if you don't trust me. I just need a list of everything you bought, let's say it's, umm, to help me budget.

[jack-r-abbit]

Oh, is that all. The CC statement is not very detailed. From the last two months, you'll see several deliveries from Mountain Mikes Pizza, some various (non-descript) charges at Amazon ranging from a few dollars (music) to a few hundred dollars (bought a smoker), my $7.99 NetFlix sub, my bi-weekly delivery of organic fruits/veggies from a "local" farm (Farm Fresh To You), the equipment protection plan for my phone, the Veritas Instrument rental for my kid, ~5k in car repair last month at Volkswagen, monthly membership to City Beach, my web hosting bill (Rochen Host), DVD rental from RedBox, a donation to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, I stopped at a local pub (The Hopyard) for a couple pints and I reloaded my BART card.

[alexqgb]

Don't be a idiot. You should know as well as anyone that simply "being in public" actually preserves a large amount of privacy and anonymity. Consider, for, instance, what would happen if any of the countless people you pass by daily decided to follow your every step, stalking you, recording everything you say and do, waiting for you in the street when you got home, then relentlessly pursuing you again when you leave.

You'd have the person arrested for harassment.

In a functioning democracy, it's not the thickness of the doors that prevents them from being kicked in, but the strength of the laws that restrains those who would do the kicking. Likewise, the "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not limited to the narrow range of situations in which violations are physically impossible, but the much broader range of situations in which violations are corrosive enough to be socially and politically unacceptable.

[diminoten]

Legally? No, there's no such idea as, "anonymous in public", and no, someone recording you in public isn't harassment. Ask celebrities. The paparazzi get in trouble when they enter into private spaces, but public spaces? Fair game. Always.

And what exactly is your moral argument against it? That your public movements would incriminate you somehow? That's a slippery slope argument - there's no connection between tracking your movements and necessarily indicting you for breaking some law. Besides, if you break a law in public, what the fuck were you thinking?

[alexqgb]

The moral arguments against it are profound: put simply human liberty and constant mass surveillance are mutually incompatible.

There is a deep and rich body of literature, philosophy, research, and direct human experience to back this up. I am truly sorry that you appear to be completely unfamiliar with any of it. If you have a sincere interest in the subject, you can start with the most widely recognized point of reference: George Orwell's "1984".

Also, regarding celebrities and their suffering at the hands of paparazzi. This is something of a special case, and hardly a situation that reflects the broad sweep of common law. But even here, there's recognition that something really awful and abusive is going on. California has already taken steps to curb the worst of it in ways that conform with existing laws and constitutional protections for the press. Meanwhile, celebrities themselves have taken to hiring PI's, who document the frequently-illegal abuses they're subjected to, and turning over their findings to the police.

[diminoten]

1984 is a work of fiction and has no bearable application on the world of today, and furthermore there is no philosophical literature dealing with being monitored while in PUBLIC. This isn't about privacy when you're in a place no one else is, this is about how incredibly naive it is to think when you're in public, no one's allowed to look at you.

Do not transform this into a privacy debate, because I'm not saying you don't deserve privacy. Don't ruin this discussion by getting all fanatical on me...

[alexqgb]

"this is about how incredibly naive it is to think when you're in public, no one's allowed to look at you."

That is...not even remotely close to what I, or anyone else on this thread has said. This was about the malign effects relentless surveillance and stalking, not people glancing in your direction as you walk down the street. And you can't possibly be serious when you say "there is no philosophical literature dealing with being monitored while in PUBLIC." That is just so unbelievably wrong.

I realize I shouldn't get upset about stupid online comments, but every now and then you encounter one that is so unfathomably ignorant that your jaw just drops. And you, sir, have left me flabbergasted.

[jack-r-abbit]

> what would happen if any of the countless people you pass by daily decided to follow your every step, stalking you, recording everything you say and do, waiting for you in the street when you got home, then relentlessly pursuing you again when you leave.

I'm pretty sure what you just described there is exactly what paparazzi do. I don't believe any have been arrested for doing that. (Mind you, if they do get arrested, it is usually for something else.)

[alexqgb]

That's very much a special case, and one that effects a microscopic portion of the population. Were that level of harassment to become part of daily life as lived by millions, the presently tentative efforts to rein them legally in would become very serious, very quickly.

[jack-r-abbit]

But that isn't a special case because of law. It is only special because only a microscopic portion of the population is that popular with the rest of the population. People don't do this to me because no one is buying those pictures and putting them in magazines... not because some laws give me extra privacy.

You asked what would happen. The answer is the same for me as it is for Jay-Z or Tom Hanks: Nothing.

[alexqgb]

That was actually my point, the law hasn't responded to paparazzi in a major way because they effect so few people. Or rather, it hadn't responded until relatively recently. California has found that the swarms are so big, and behave with such reckless disregard for public safety (high-speed chases on freeways are as especially sore point) that they've started to drop the hammer on these fuckers, passing legislation to curb the worst abuses.

Putting this special case aside, if you were to stalk someone in ways that many 'regular' people are actually exposed to, you'd find yourself face to face with a more fully developed - and far more serious - body of legislation.

http://suite101.com/a/stalking-law-a29952

The larger point is that a few people suffering the paps are not a threat to the republic. But if everyone had cause to live their lives in the fearful, guarded, anxious way that a lot of stars actually live (minus the giant paychecks, of course) then it's likely that society really would break down, and we'd see that "the reasonable expectation of privacy" isn't determined by what's technically possible at any given time, but what's psychologically necessary for people to function in and as a democracy.

[mixmastamyk]

Interesting question. However, I think you've got it backwards. What right does the government have to track individuals? That's what we should be asking.

[maratd]

It's not a right, but a desire and a desire that can be realized with simple planning. Is there some reason a person shouldn't implement methods that limit exposure?

[newman314]

Why not? Do you walk around naked at all times?

[blah32497]

I think this is a perfectly legitimate question. What is the parent post genuinely concerned about? (assuming he's not hauling drugs)

[forgotAgain]

What is the parent post genuinely concerned about?

For myself, nothing. I have to say I lead a rather mundane life.

My objection is not for myself, it's for others. I don't want reporters tracked. I don't want whistleblowers tracked. I don't want government employees to feel threatened they may lose their jobs because they have a private life. For those people to be safe we all have to be protected from government tracking.

[alexqgb]

Sorry, accidental downvote. I meant to upvote since you nailed it: I want privacy norms to be respected not because I have anything in particular to hide, but because I want people who can advance my general interests as a citizen to be able to do so safely.

I am acutely aware that doing so demands adversarial relationships with powers that can be concentrated, lawless, and malign. The risks faced by people challenging them are real. They deserve all the protection they can get.

Put simply, we're all in this together.

[diminoten]

This isn't an argument against privacy, this is an argument against absolute privacy.

You're not private all the time. Stop pretending like you are, it just doesn't mesh with reality. I can fucking see you walk into that night club, you did that in full view of the whole world.

[toomuchtodo]

Yet, here we are, without a system in place where that data can be queried in seconds in a programatic way, stored perpetually.

As it should be.

[tdfx]

Your argument is similar to the "why are you scared if you've got nothing to hide?" response to the NSA scandal. According to society, we all should be perfect citizens whose outward lives perfectly reflect our inward, private thoughts and actions. But we're not, and evidence to the contrary can be used against us.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are perfect. You don't exceed the speed limit, you don't haul drugs. But one of your elected officials really enjoys visiting his secret girlfriend on Sunday evenings. Do you still trust him to vote objectively in every circumstance?

True, I can't see XYZ agency using their records to threaten elected officials, either. But I doubt anyone was worried that promoting an egotistical bureaucrat in the Bureau of Investigation in the early 1900s would ever lead to the reign of J. Edgar Hoover. The whole point is that these things aren't a big deal on their own -- it's the slippery slope concept that should concern you.

[diminoten]

This isn't a privacy argument, you already (should) have privacy in the situations where you're not around other people or out in the open.

This is about the times when you're out on the street with everybody else. That's when you can't reasonably expect EVERYONE TO LOOK AWAY when you walk into a store, or buy a coffee or throw your trash on the ground.

It's those times when you're not private. You know, in public.

[nitrogen]

These things aren't legally protected because our cultural and instinctive expectations forbid them. Try walking down the street and looking every single person you pass directly in the eye for as long as they're visible. See how they react. Follow them around. Write down everything they're doing. Let us all know what happens.