By on February 2, 2016

You probably don’t know much about Vigilant Systems, but the company likely knows more about you than you know about them. That because Vigilant Systems is in the business of knowing. The company has so far collected about 2.8 billion license plate photos with its network of cameras, and every month it adds another 70-80 million photos, including a timestamp of the photo and geographic location of the plate, to Vigilant Solutions’ permanent storage. They sell that data to police departments and, depending on the jurisdiction, even some private sector institutions, such as insurance companies investigating fraud.

Vigilant Solutions’ deals with government agencies have raised concerns about civil liberties, freedom of movement, privacy and mass surveillance. As Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic describes Vigilant Solutions, “your diminished privacy is their product.”

When I saw the piece in The Atlantic, since we’ve covered automated license plate readers (ALPR) and their implications for motorists’ privacy here at TTAC before, I knew it would be of interest to our readers. Before I had a chance to write that piece though, I was alerted to a post at the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Deeplinks blog describing a deal Vigilant Solutions is offering police agencies in Texas for free license plate readers, access to the company’s huge databases and LEARN-NVLS software tools to analyze that data. That post takes concerns about Vigilant Solutions to another level, hence this post.

As Mr. Heinlein taught us, TANSTAAFL, so how is it funded? Well, to begin with, Vigilant Solutions gets access to more data about you that they can sell to others, but what’s motivation for the police agencies, apart from free ALPR gear?

Where the real money, and potential to distort law enforcement, apparently comes in is due to a recent change in Texas law that allows police agencies to equip patrol vehicles with credit and debit card readers so they can take payment on the spot for capias warrants for unpaid court fines. While the law was described by its sponsors as making it easier for people to avoid getting hauled into jail for just owing money, critics say that cops will spend their time cherry picking bench warrant statistics, not enforcing traffic laws, because it’s an easier way to generate revenue.

The EFF says that’s pretty much what’s happened in Texas, with Vigilant Solutions’ active participation. The civil liberties group has examined contracts between between Vigilant Solutions and Guadalupe County, and with the cities of Orange and Kyle. The government agencies give the company data on all of their outstanding court fees, which Vigilant Solutions turns into a hot list supplied to the free ALPR systems. When a patrol car or motorcycle-mounted ALPR finds a plate on the hot list, the officer is pinged by the system.

Once pulled over, the driver has the choice of going to jail — or using their plastic. Using your credit or debit account as a get out of jail card, though, comes at a price, literally. There’s a 25-percent processing fee, all of which goes to Vigilant Solutions. Late last year, the firm issued a press release saying that Guadalupe County had collected the fees for more than 4,500 warrants using their system in 2015.

Unrelated to the use of ALPRs, the contracts also have Vigilant acting as a collection agency, sending out notices to drivers based on the data they receive from the agencies. The county’s contract with Vigilant has recently been upgraded to allow the company to use its own private contractors to collect on capias warrants.

While trumpeting the revenue enhancing aspects of their system, the company also had to announce that it had sent out several warrant notices to the wrong recipients in December as part of the Warrant Redemption Program. They issued a public apology to those people, and to their “law enforcement customers” just to make it clear whose interests they serve. So far, Vigilant hasn’t said how many people were mistakenly notified, how much money was collected in error, or even if anybody’s been refunded money they didn’t really owe. Vigilant is a private company, so they aren’t legally obligated to tell us anything, and their contracts with government bodies prohibit the agencies from talking about Vigilant with the press without the company’s permission. One wonders if that part of those contracts is consistent with transparency and freedom of information laws in Texas.

In addition to more general fears about tracking your movements and privacy, the EFF lists a number of non-trivial concerns about Vigilant Solutions’ program in Texas:

  • It turns police into debt collectors, who have to keep swiping credit cards to keep the free equipment.
  • It turns police into data miners, who use the privacy of local drivers as currency.
  • It not-so-subtly shifts police priorities from responding to calls and traffic violations to responding to a computer’s instructions.
  • Policy makers and the public are unable to effectively evaluate the technology since the contract prohibits police from speaking honestly and openly about the program.
  • The model relies on debt: there’s no incentive for criminal justice leaders to work with the community to reduce the number of capias warrants, since that could result in losing the equipment.
  • People who have committed no crimes whatsoever have their driving patterns uploaded into a private system and no opportunity to control or watchdog how that data is disseminated. 

A technology that was first promoted as a way to apprehend actual criminals (the promotional video above, from Vigilant Solutions, hypes how they found three “real criminal locations” in their demonstration of the system to Dallas police), save kidnapped children, and recover stolen cars is now used in ways that could infringe on your privacy and distort the way police enforce the law. Discuss among yourselves.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

57 Comments on “Time To Be Vigilant About Vigilant Solutions’ Spying On Motorists?...”


  • avatar
    dwford

    I don’t have a problem with license plate scanners per se, they will help police find criminals. But the collection and retention of unlimited location data on millions of Americans is no bueno.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      dwford – the shock of 9/11 allowed politicians to change laws covering the monitoring of civilians and how that data is used. Private firms are not bound by the same rules as public officers conducting security and surveillance so in many respects it was viewed as a win/win by politicians and big business. They can be more intrusive with less oversight, sell data to government or private firms, or swap data and make a ton of money while doing it.

  • avatar
    anti121hero

    Keep on rocking in the free world

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    Vigilant Solutions? So, they manufacture and sell chemicals?

    On a more serious note, when I say that the jury’s still out on whether the invention of the electronic computer was a good thing for mankind, this is what I’m talking about.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      The invention of the computer is good. Having to “show papers” just to move around, which is what license plates is, has never been anything other but a side effect of living in a totalitarian hellhole.

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    Would you object if I installed an ALPR on my lawn and kept records on all the vehicles that drive down my street?

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      I’d say that was an excellent idea if you live in a neighborhood the police have to care enough about to protect. Get a really big storage capability. Could help ID perps.

    • 0 avatar
      cbrworm

      There are a number of towns and cities that do exactly that. A couple near me monitor every entry and exit road and capture everything.

      • 0 avatar
        zamoti

        Now open source! http://www.openalpr.com/

        Just to be clear, these exist at every tollbooth and most major bridges and tunnels. If you’re in the greater NY area, you’re being monitored at various places.
        Better yet, walk down Wall St. and get a free picture taken by the joint NYPD and financial firms task force:
        http://www.infowars.com/wall-streets-secret-spy-center-run-by-nypd/

        If you’re reading any of this in shock, you’re about 4 years too late. This is a done deal already.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Nice piece Ronnie.

    When police units are literally turned into mobile POS stations, how much more will it take until we admit we have become a banana republic?

    • 0 avatar
      markf

      Banana Republic indeed…

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      Just a point to consider, but there is a fundamental question about revenue that we need to face.

      Taxes.

      In my opinion, a lot of bad has come out of what I call the “war against taxes”. In essence, by attempting to starve government (a popular meme in recent decades) we have forced it to become more creative in how it generates revenue. The problem, of course, is that that opens the door to all sorts of maneuvering by those who wish to avoid being the target of these new means of revenue generation. That is the very definition of “privilege”.

      Are we surprised that the perversion of law enforcement is a consequence?

      In my opinion, this is the direct result of simplistic solutions to our problems. “Cut taxes! We pay too much!” is easy. What’s hard is actually using the power of our vote to elect people who serve *us* rather than vested interests. So, instead we create churn which always benefits the hyenas, such as Vigilant Systems, lurking who seize opportunities to “get their share” as systems change.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        Of course reducing the size and scope of Gov is out of the question I guess. Of course PDs would not be “starved” if they didn’t make such outrageous salaries and insane pensions. See California, Nassau/Suffolk county NY as examples…

        • 0 avatar
          bunkie

          Missing the point. This is *not* an argument against shrinking the government, just that the “simple” solution has some very dangerous consequences.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            I have to agree with you. I’m all for cutting taxes, but you have to cut spending first. Cutting taxes, and then spending more doesn’t work to well.

          • 0 avatar
            jim brewer

            Sure it is, Bunkie, and let’s face it: Most of the pigeons are going to be minorities, or at least working class, so it’s ideal.

            A lot of things get distorted by the anti-tax movement, not always with the politically powerless as the brunt. In California it costs over $800 to register an LLC every year. Its a fee not a tax, which requires a supermajority of the legislature.

            The property tax system where two crippled old people live in a big house with a massively lower tax than the much less affluent younger couple is standard. In California, prop 13 applied to commercial property and since the corporate owner could live forever, there’s a massive tax benefit for the corporations. I think they were talking about changing it.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            The only way to “cut spending”, is to remove the means to spend.

            The epic failure of Reagan’s “cut taxes” shtick, was that government, as in, Reagan’s own, just made up for it by increased borrowing. And then, when that ran into trouble, they made up for it with lower interest rates. Then Quantitative Easing, i.e. Fed buying government bonds with printed money. And then, outright monetization of fresh debt, BOJ style.

            Gold or Bitcoin, as in non (or, in gold’s case very mildly) inflationary currency outside the realm of possible debasement by the government, combined with cutting taxes, solves the/all problem(s) quite nicely. There were no “Vigilant Solutions” back in the civilized era, after all.

            Since the likelihood of any totalitarian government voluntarily constraining themselves that way, we’ll have to wait for grass roots solutions. Reasonably well trusted and anonymous digital payments, combined with a much larger share of total consumed goods’ value add becoming virtualizable. More of total expenditures and incomes coming by way of online activity, in addition to a shift towards end user production where the value add is in a 3d printer or router cut file downloadable over an anonymous network and paid for by anonymous coin, rather than being produced by an easily extorted physical and location-locked entity.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Bunkie – taxation is always a political minefield. Taxes should be raised when times are good to build up the coffers to be used for when times get rough. When times do go bad then you can afford to drop taxes to help stimulate the economy.

            I do agree that all levels of government use pay parking, traffic fines, and user fees on public land/property as a form of indirect taxation.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Well, I decided to make a list in the way that Stuki is basically wrong in his complete argument. It’s not quite as well ordered as I want but it’ll do:

            1.) Totalitarian governments rarely bother with a proper tax system and instead instigate direct ownership/embezzlement for top players. See: Early Russian oligarchy from the 1990s/2000s.

            2.) The idea that by moving to a gray or black market will end taxation is silly. That would at most stop sales taxes. There will always be physical property as long as we exist as people and that property may be taken in exchange for goods or services. If you did change to bitcoin or whatever that suits you the government would take your actual goods to exchange for services.

            3.) The only people demanding a reduction in actual services (i.e. spending cuts) are people who think they aren’t benefiting or would rather NOT let other benefit. It’s always interesting because when you go line by line you find that Democracies tend to actually want spending for all items because they serve all people (just not the same people…it’s piecemeal and served in an omnibus for a reason).

            4.) Inflationary currency is good for you and I. Unless you’re part of the capitalist class where the majority of your earning is from currency itself then your salary/income will grow faster with inflation than their capital will. The fear of runaway inflation is something that the leisure class manage to instill in morons a long time ago because well…People are dumb. They don’t understand how economics actually work and tend to buy the simplest premises because the wealthy do have a great amount of access to public figures and space to pass these arguments off.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            @Xeranar:
            1)
            You’re right. As “our” own amply demonstrates, proper tax systems is not something totalitarians see much use in bothering with. Instead, a simply focus on maximum confiscation from all those neither more equal nor well connected nor potential donors, is the name of the game.

            2)
            It would render activity taxation much less feasible. Not simply sales taxation, income taxation as well. And activity taxes are the problematic ones, as they require government spying on people, and people ratting out neighbors. Part and parcel for the totalitarian dystopias of statists’ dreams, I realize; but for those of us with higher aspirations for our fellow man, simply petty and disgusting. As pertains to immovable, essentially property, taxation, that’s a feature. “This land is your land, this land is my land”, etc. If someone wants government assistance to rescind the “your” part of a certain parcel of it, pay up. Requires no spying, no ratting out, nothing involuntary at all. Don’t pay if you don’t wish, and fend for yourself against “intruders”, sans government assistance.

            3)
            Building bombcraters around the world, groping my kids, and waterboarding others’, aren’t “services.” Neither is robbing me to pay of a gaggle of incompetent bankster trash, regardless how well the imbecilocrats have been indoctrinated into believing that preventing well connected political donors from losing money when “investing” $1 million in a half built outhouse in the Nevada dessert, will save some “system” they know nothing about. And that said “system” is anything but an excuse for petty graft. Noone of simultaneous sound mind and an intact intellect, believe government provides valuable “services” anymore. What they do is steal. And indoctrinate the stupid into accepting said theft as some sort of virtue. That’s all and that’s it, full stop.

            4)
            Let’s see: Until 1974, there were at least some semblance of anchor of the dollar to gold, limiting government’s ability to inflate at will. Then Nixon removed that safety hatch. So, according to your theory, compared to earlier eras, median incomes, as in for the you’s and me’s, should, starting around 1974, have grown faster than monetary inflation. While previously, before 1974, they should not…… Seriously, do you even read what you write before hitting submit? And if so, do you make any, even the most rudimentary, attempt to reconcile what you claim, with observable reality?

            If you’re genuinely curious, and not simply out there to regurgitate some trite partyline: When then Fed/Government inflates the money supply, they do so by introducing added, unearned, purchasing power via the banks. Who then, lends the money out. At lower interest rates than otherwise, since their cost of funds are artificially lowered. The banks, of course, taking a cut in the process. So, given that loans preferentially flow to those with collateral versus those without, how are “you and me” benefitting, over and above “the capitalists?” All I, and anyone else who bother looking, ever see, is that the banks (who get their cut), and the previously wealthy (those with collateral) are getting more than they otherwise would have. And, since no new wealth is being created by printing Washington’s head on paper pieces, the total size of the pie stays constant. So, $(You and me) + $(Capitalists(banks + collateral owners)) is constant. While the latter’s $ increases. What do you then think must happen to the former’s?

            And, lo and behold, let’s go look. Since 1974, who has benefitted the most from government’s newfound ability to inflate at will? I’ll be darned, if it doesn’t look like, tah-dah, the banks. And the wealthy. Weird, isn’t it?

      • 0 avatar
        ClutchCarGo

        And this is the kind of thing that creates such hostility in places like Ferguson, MO. Funding the criminal justice system via user fees creates a perverse incentive for LEO, and cripples low income people who run afoul of the multitude of minor violations of law. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of a cop being shot by someone who feared being sucked into the financial maw of a TX court, or at least a tragic high-speed chase that ends badly for innocent bystanders.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Interesting post, bit of cause and effect in play which most didn’t pick up on (inc me).

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    “..allow the company to use its own private contractors to collect on capias warrants”

    Are these Vigilant employees deputized or something whereby they have some official capacity? I’m trying to see how this plays out: some corporate goon shows up at your door demanding on-the-spot payment, or else.. what? Is Vigilant supplying Kevlar to their people? This is Texas, after all.

    • 0 avatar
      tedward

      Yeah. That’s a situation that’s going to go from incredulity to violence real quick. Probably not until a few articles have been written and the public is aware though.

      The part of this that bothers me the most is the contract language forbidding law enforcement from discussing the business relationship. That is a really nasty piece of work and has serious implications for police/public relations. Same thing popped up with the stingrays and that alone immediately delegitimized the entire enterprise in most people’s minds. Too clever for their own good. It’s completely unenforceable and serves only to inflame public opinion.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        “The part of this that bothers me the most is the contract language forbidding law enforcement from discussing the business relationship.”

        This.

        This part of a much larger trend to use contract law to restrict personal rights. It’s an epidemic. All of the big companies are doing this.

  • avatar
    Ojala

    Texas law enforcement being able to collect money instead of taking a person to jail on a capias pro fine warrant is not new. This was previously limited to specific types of law enforcement such as a Marshall in certain jurisdictions. The law opened up the different types of law enforcement that could collect money on a capias pro fine.

  • avatar
    tedward

    Let me lay out a prediction. This company or one of their client primaries is going to piss off a judge by attempting to force records to be sealed or refusing to testify accurately about the program. It will immediately be made entirely public, and in exactly the worst way from the companies perspective. The caustic language used by the judge will give the story a chance at national prominance.

    The moral of the story (for other police contractees) is to let actual lawyers do this work, not former leos or federal officers.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    It’s perfectly legal to photograph license plates while in public places. No consent is required.

    The issue is with how the information is used. That is largely a state and local matter. If the people of Texas don’t like it, then it is up to them to tell their officials that they don’t like it and to pass laws against it (and they should.)

    • 0 avatar

      You’re correct, though I think there may be broader constitutional issues which might allow involvement by the federal judiciary.

      While nobody has any expectation of privacy or rights to their own image when in public, civil liberties issues arise when that data is collated and your movements can be retroactively mapped. That starts edging into mass surveillance of innocent people as well as bringing up concerns over freedoms of movement and association.

      You and I have the right to take photographs of license plates. I’m not so sure about the government – it may have the power to do so, but not the rights. For the matter, does the government have any rights? In the American system, government supposedly only has those powers that are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, not rights.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The government issued the license plates. They belong to the state.

        You must display those license plates in order to drive a car on public roads. There is no right to privacy vis-a-vis license plates.

        In any case, the photos are being taken by a private operator, which has the right to take photographs just as you and I have the right to take them. Photography in public is protected under the First Amendment.

        There is no constitutional problem. The solution is to pass laws, not to expect the federal courts to intervene, as they have little reason to.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Photography in public places is one thing, but it crosses the line, for a private commercial, for profit company, to extract supposedly protected state/government files of private citizens, for commercial use.

        • 0 avatar

          At which point does a contractor working with the state become a state agent? Can the police use evidence illegally obtained by a confidential informant?

          To be honest, the part of the deal where it says that the municipalities can’t discuss the deal is what troubles me the most.

          Vigilant Solutions wants to be able to exercise rights as a private actor at the same time that it’s trying to use a contract to enforce public policy.

          Unless one is a crook or a crony, I don’t see how anyone, left or right, could approve of this.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There is nothing illegal about calling the cops and telling them that you saw a car with license plate X in location Y.

            There is nothing illegal about photographing that license plate on public property. That license plate belongs to the state, as the Supreme Court recently affirmed.

            As for the secrecy of the contracts, I would presume that is a state and local matter. (This states rights stuff really sucks, doesn’t it?)

            Just because you dislike it doesn’t mean that it’s illegal or unconstitutional. It is up to the local citizenry to pass laws against it if they don’t like it.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        We have no right to privacy in a public area nor do we have a right to not be ‘tracked’ though I agree it is creepy and should be monitored. But this is nothing new, we’ve recorded traffic patterns for years and have tried to resolve better patterns.

        Also there is the whole ‘implied powers’ clause that gives congress near unlimited rights to implement laws as they see fit as long as they don’t infringe on your civil liberties. Sadly this is abusive and may infringe but it doesn’t on the surface.

        • 0 avatar
          S1L1SC

          The issue is a private company placing their equipment on public service vehicle and building their database that way – and sharing data. If they used their own vehicles to scan plates it would be different. If the police used their own equipment to ID plates associated with wanted criminals, it would be different – The big issue is the data storage and database building and the labor and enforcement sharing that appears to be happening here.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            I completely agree with your interpretation but those aren’t inherently unconstitutional. The actions may unfairly advantage another group (thus meaning they would have to open up all data) but they’re not legally prohibited from sharing which is a problem unto itself.

            I’m thoroughly against the abuse of what this action has turned into (more or less big data sales) but it needs laws made against it since the constitution is mute on the issue.

  • avatar
    markf

    “In the American system, government supposedly only has those powers that are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, not rights.”

    The most intelligent line I have ever read on this site’s comment section.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    This is interesting, Ronnie,
    I was really impressed by Ron Paul in the last debate when he talked about how local governments are criminalizing the poor by charging exorbitant fees for every little misdemeanor in order so they can avoid raising taxes. The impact is to take away cars from the working poor and turn them into the homeless.

    Unfortunately, Vigilant is yet another company taking advantage of our free enterprise system and the gullibility and greed of local politicians to hurt the people these politicians were entrusted to protect.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      I was impressed that Ron was willing to admit to a Republican crowd that how you get treated in the American criminal justice system depends on your race and social class.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Me too. Paul took a courageous stance in that forum, and I admire him for it. Unfortunately, I only agree with about half of what he says. But of all the candidates, I think Paul is the most consistent and the most willing to tell people what he believes, rather than what he thinks they want to hear.

  • avatar
    Dirk Stigler

    At a recent meeting with our local PD, my neighborhood watch coordinator asked the CPO what her thoughts were on HOAs using license plate cameras to monitor the entrances to the subdivision (he’s a security guy, it’s his job to think like that). The CPO advised us that the cameras are expensive, there are real issues with controlling access to the data gathered, and that the PD is currently defending a lawsuit related to that issue.

    An individual camera is close to being a direct analogue to taking photos in a public space. A network of cameras that creates a searchable database of “hits” on license plates covering a wide geographic area is something more. Doing a search of such a database is analogous to following someone, and the courts are now grappling with whether it requires probable cause and a warrant like old-fashioned surveillance or tracking.

    The other thing you always need to keep in mind with any IT system is that in the real world you can’t count on the data only being accessed for legitimate purposes. There are people who have access to do searches, and there may or may not be any audit trail created when they do. LEOs, up to and including the Secret Service, have been found to have accessed law enforcement databases to stalk people for personal reasons. The license plate cameras have certainly already been used that way, too.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    Umm. 25% processing fee? That should be regulated, it’s ridiculous and the group making the decision isn’t paying so market forces do not apply. BTW, where is this private company headquartered and who owns it? There should be a publicly available list of the home addresses of all owners and employees. Why should they deserve privacy, not like anyone will abuse the data.

  • avatar
    markf

    This is just like the red light / speed camera scams.Private company acting as an agent of the state (or impersonating one) then taking a “cut”Law Enforcement and local Government see us not as free citizens but subjects to be regulated and taxed extrajudicially to support their growing surveillance apparatus.

    The Left loves to argue legality while ignoring constitutionality, individual rights and freedom. It is all about supporting the State, not the citizen.

    • 0 avatar
      05lgt

      As long as we’re dumb enough to follow the painted lines and devolve into a left vs. right argument, the growing police / corporate surveilance complex will continue to steal our rights and money.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Mark isn’t bright enough to notice that this is happening in Texas, a place that is not exactly known for its leftist politics.

        • 0 avatar
          wstarvingteacher

          Actually, I think all the major population areas have left leaning (or totally committed) governments.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            A quick glance at Guadalupe County’s last election results would indicate that 100% of its elected officials are Republican.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          PCH your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. Never heard of Austin then? Not everyone in Texas is a raging Right-winger……

          Police Unions who push for these type of systems are exclusively Democrat enclaves. Many local municipalities local governments, etc regardless of Red State / Blue State are run by Leftists. State governments are hesitant and/or not interested in getting involved in local policies like this so the people get screwed. another factor is many people who “support the Police” go along with these idiotic schemes.

          Why let something like individual rights and liberties get in the way of Big Brother tracking your every move, for a profit no less…..

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            Mark, I have in-depth personal knowledge of county judicial corruption in Texas. The corrupt county I know the best is republican, but rest assured, these criminals have no real political philosophy. They take on the ideology most likely to enable them to get into office.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So because Austin is located in Texas, Texas is leftist.

            Jesus, you’re dumb.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            I use Austin as an example that not all of Texas is the stereotype you perceive it to be.

            I never said Texas was leftist, you just made that up.

            Jesus, you are an idiot……

  • avatar
    jkk6

    In. S.Korea, license plate recognition technology is used for automatic gate/garage openers. Fascinating how people are able to make money when applying existing systems such as ANPR(Automatic number plate recognition)in different context.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    I just can’t get worked up about this sort of thing. If you owe a fine, pay your fine! Then you won’t risk being hauled off to jail or paying a 25% penalty. This seems like a more efficient and less expensive way to collect fines than hauling people into jail then court (again). Want to track my movements? Go right ahead, it will be a seriously boring afternoon for you though.

    Here’s a hint – if you don’t want to pay fines or come to the attention of the police, don’t break the law. They have better things to do than deal with you.

  • avatar

    Personally I like the idea of tag readers & think they do more good than harm. In the video a couple of stolen cars & the car of a missing person were found. Use the cameras to find unlicensed or uninsured drivers, people with warrants,& I have no problem tracking sex offenders, especially if parked across from a school. My neighbor is a State Trooper & he says that it has increased the number of stolen cars & felons he has stopped that otherwise he would have let pass by. Track me all you want if it helps put criminals in jail, I don’t break the law.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: Jeez, I can’t imagine paying that much for 1 vehicle, $1,900 is what one could expect to pay for about 3-4...
  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States