From jazz at qnet.com Sun Oct 25 16:20:35 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:20:35 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Learned a new word today Message-ID: <200910252120.n9PLKrQR009711@mail.zarquon.net> I saw a snippet of "Inherit the Wind" on TV today. I heard the judge say, "Call the next venereman" as they were trying to build up the jury. Never heard of that, so I pulled out a dictionary, then went on line. a few minutes later, I found http://www.answers.com/topic/venireman venireman n. A person summoned to jury duty under a venire. and a bit later Usage: "Nearly every venireman wanted to join the jury, if for no other reason than that it appeared to offer a front-row seat for the proceedings." ? Edward J. Larson; Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion; Basic Books; 2006. I've heard of summons, but not a venire. I've never received one, even though I've been called to jury duty several times. Anyway, just shows you that even old movies can still teach you something. Bill Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Oct 25 17:14:53 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Learned a new word today In-Reply-To: <200910252120.n9PLKrQR009711@mail.zarquon.net> References: <200910252120.n9PLKrQR009711@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <25B15CD7310F4010B3F0859661BD378E@StevePC> Bill Taylor says: > I saw a snippet of "Inherit the Wind" on TV > today. I heard the judge say, "Call the next > venereman" as they were trying to build up the > jury. Yes, as you discovered, it's traditional usage, though normally non-lawyers have no reason to know it. I can think of no other simple way to say "someone who's been summoned for possible jury service but not placed on a jury panel yet." If a snippet is all you've seen, go rent the movie. It's one of the truly great ones. Although dramatized, it's surprising how much of the important (and *some* of the dramatic) stuff happened in real life. The names are changed, as well as the back-story of "Bertram Cates," but the personalities of the key figures are pretty true; the romantic interest and the specific role of the preacher are purely made up; but most of the conduct of the trial, and some of the most telling lines from it, follow the transcript. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Sun Oct 25 17:27:53 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:27:53 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Learned a new word today In-Reply-To: <25B15CD7310F4010B3F0859661BD378E@StevePC> References: <200910252120.n9PLKrQR009711@mail.zarquon.net> <25B15CD7310F4010B3F0859661BD378E@StevePC> Message-ID: <200910252239.n9PMdCac018447@mail.zarquon.net> At 17:14 10/25/2009 -0500, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ > >Bill Taylor says: > > > I saw a snippet of "Inherit the Wind" on TV > > today. I heard the judge say, "Call the next > > venereman" as they were trying to build up the > > jury. > >Yes, as you discovered, it's traditional usage, though normally >non-lawyers have no reason to know it. I can think of no other >simple way to say "someone who's been summoned for possible jury >service but not placed on a jury panel yet." > >If a snippet is all you've seen, go rent the movie. It's one of the >truly great ones. Although dramatized, it's surprising how much of >the important (and *some* of the dramatic) stuff happened in real >life. The names are changed, as well as the back-story of "Bertram >Cates," but the personalities of the key figures are pretty true; >the romantic interest and the specific role of the preacher are >purely made up; but most of the conduct of the trial, and some of >the most telling lines from it, follow the transcript. Oh, I'd seen the movie before. I guess I just never noticed that bit of dialogue before. I like it well enough, though some of the out of court stuff edges too far into melodrama. And it has probably the one role I don't like Gene Kelly in. His character is just far too cynical for me. I read later that he was based on H L Mencken, who I generally like. I even have the Hobgoblin quote on a T-shirt (that I wore a lot during some of Bush's worst days). On the other hand, this was probably the first movie I'd seen Frederic March in. He was good, but I didn't realize how good an actor he was until I'd seen him in a few other, better roles. His Brady was such a stuffed shirt I didn't feel I as getting much from him. Bill Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Sun Oct 25 20:36:11 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:36:11 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Learned a new word today In-Reply-To: <200910252239.n9PMdCac018447@mail.zarquon.net> References: <200910252120.n9PLKrQR009711@mail.zarquon.net><25B15CD7310F4010B3F0859661BD378E@StevePC> <200910252239.n9PMdCac018447@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor says: > I like it well enough, though some of the out of court stuff edges > too far into melodrama. Yes. > And it has probably the one role I don't > like Gene Kelly in. His character is just far too cynical for me. I > read later that he was based on H L Mencken, who I generally like. That was my inclination when I first saw it, but AFAICT his portrayal of Mencken was accurate. The only thing a little bit off was his good humor, and maybe that he could be cowed, a bit, at the end by Darrow - but even that may be realistic, since Darrow was a pretty overwhelming character too. Mencken in fact covered the trial, and some of his nastiest comments in the film were based on his real ones. He was the one who publicized it as "the monkey trial," for instance. His reports started generous enough, referring to the "charm and beauty" of the town, but later referred to the limited impact of reasonable speech "upon the so-called minds of these fundamentalists of upland Tennessee"; the "hillbillies" and "yokels" to whom "his [Bryan's] nonsense is their ideal of sense. When he deluges them with his theologic bilge they rejoice like pilgrims disporting in the river Jordan . . . ." > On the other hand, this was probably the first movie I'd seen > Frederic March in. He was good, but I didn't realize how good an > actor he was until I'd seen him in a few other, better roles. His > Brady was such a stuffed shirt I didn't feel I as getting > much from him. Go find pictures and recordings of Jennings. Here's a photo from the trial: . I've also heard a recording of him recreating, late in life, his "cross of gold" speech. March's performance is almost indistinguishable from the real thing - he even looked like him - although he may or may not have been as frantic as sometimes shown here. Odds are he was; during the trial, Mencken referred to how "he leads a new crusade, his bald head glistening, his face streaming with sweat, his chest heaving beneath his rumpled alpaca coat." He added, "he can shake and inflame these poor ignoramuses as no other man among us can shake and inflame them, and he is desperately eager to order the charge." Some of his more pompous comments in the film are also real; and he did play the court for laughs. (E.g., his comment about Man being descended "Not even from American monkeys, but from old world monkeys"; he did not actually use the line "It is better to trust in the Rock of Ages than to know the ages of rocks" in his testimony, but it was his, from one or more of his anti-Darwinist speeches, and it was alluded to in the affidavits of scientific witnesses. While he did not in fact drop dead right at the end of the trial, he did just a few days later, in the same town, after overeating in the hot weather. From SteveG at swhi.net Mon Oct 26 17:10:04 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Learned a new word today In-Reply-To: References: <200910252120.n9PLKrQR009711@mail.zarquon.net><25B15CD7310F4010B3F0859661BD378E@StevePC><200910252239.n9PMdCac018447@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <24E78F146C984D7B9D4BC25D9F8493DC@StevePC> Not a new word, but an interesting derivation I just stumbled across. I was reading one of H.L. Mencken's dispatches from the Scopes trial, in which he referred to William Jennings Bryan speaking "buncombe." This piqued my interest. See: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bunkum also: http://www.answers.com/topic/bunkum - Steve G From ignatz at dminet.com Tue Oct 27 08:03:49 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:03:49 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR Message-ID: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> An interesting system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j_On_1zRig There's a pretty detailed writeup in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition From ignatz at dminet.com Tue Oct 27 08:57:19 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> Message-ID: <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:03:49AM -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote: > An interesting system: > I've some observations about the scanning--up to 3,000 plates/hour--that > I'm going to put over in goglog. I'm of two minds about this. On the LEO side, it's great--no more anonymity in the masses for bad guys. On the personal privacy side, I have to hope they simply discard plates that are not of interest--but knowing developers, corporations, and LEO, I suspect the date/time/location of every plate scanned is recorded somewhere. If true, that bothers me; it's a pervasive surveillance. With enough ALPR units on the road, combined with iPass and similar systems, we can get a pretty comprehensive tool for tracking any vehicle we wish... Call me paranoid, but the real question is--am I paranoid enough? Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 27 09:40:10 2009 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> Message-ID: <476074.16914.qm@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You're not paranoid enough, but what can we do? Someone pointed out the more interesting side effect of things of this nature is that many current laws on privacy depend on a ruling that involves the expectation of privacy. In the current world we live in, no intelligent citizen expects privacy even if we think that in the states we have a right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure... so if the definition of unreasonable search and seizure depends on the expectation of privacy and continous breaches of that privacy lead us to not expect it, have we not lost that which we sought to protect? I kind of hope Steve or someone more knowledgable jumps in hear, but I kind of think we are hosed. Janet --- On Tue, 10/27/09, Dave Ihnat wrote: > From: Dave Ihnat > Subject: Re: [Goglog] ALPR > To: "goglog" > Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 9:57 AM > Replies are directed to the list. > If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the > To: line! > ____________________________________________________________ > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:03:49AM -0500, Dave Ihnat > wrote: > > An interesting system: > > I've some observations about the scanning--up to 3,000 > plates/hour--that > > I'm going to put over in goglog. > > I'm of two minds about this.? On the LEO side, it's > great--no more > anonymity in the masses for bad guys.? On the personal > privacy side, I > have to hope they simply discard plates that are not of > interest--but > knowing developers, corporations, and LEO, I suspect the > date/time/location of every plate scanned is recorded > somewhere.? If > true, that bothers me; it's a pervasive surveillance.? > With enough ALPR > units on the road, combined with iPass and similar systems, > we can get a > pretty comprehensive tool for tracking any vehicle we > wish... > > Call me paranoid, but the real question is--am I paranoid > enough? > > Cheers, > -- > ??? Dave Ihnat > ??? ignatz at dminet.com > _______________________________________________ > Goglog mailing list > Goglog at mail.zarquon.net > http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog > From jazz at qnet.com Tue Oct 27 09:26:28 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:26:28 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> Message-ID: <200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> At 08:57 10/27/2009 -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote: >On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:03:49AM -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote: > > An interesting system: > > I've some observations about the scanning--up to 3,000 plates/hour--that > > I'm going to put over in goglog. > >I'm of two minds about this. On the LEO side, it's great--no more >anonymity in the masses for bad guys. On the personal privacy side, I >have to hope they simply discard plates that are not of interest--but >knowing developers, corporations, and LEO, I suspect the >date/time/location of every plate scanned is recorded somewhere. If >true, that bothers me; it's a pervasive surveillance. With enough ALPR >units on the road, combined with iPass and similar systems, we can get a >pretty comprehensive tool for tracking any vehicle we wish... > >Call me paranoid, but the real question is--am I paranoid enough? True. To the extent the cops care enough to keep old records, they can track your car movements, and presumably you, across town or across the country. But they have cell phone records, and ATM and Credit cards to do that with too. And to the extent you can live without a mobile phone and live on cash, you might be able to go without personal transport too. I agree the abuse potential is huge. It would be easy to implement and very effective. But is it really that different from what already exists? Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Tue Oct 27 09:26:28 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:26:28 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> Message-ID: <200910271446.n9REkBmS007857@mail.zarquon.net> At 08:57 10/27/2009 -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote: >On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:03:49AM -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote: > > An interesting system: > > I've some observations about the scanning--up to 3,000 plates/hour--that > > I'm going to put over in goglog. > >I'm of two minds about this. On the LEO side, it's great--no more >anonymity in the masses for bad guys. On the personal privacy side, I >have to hope they simply discard plates that are not of interest--but >knowing developers, corporations, and LEO, I suspect the >date/time/location of every plate scanned is recorded somewhere. If >true, that bothers me; it's a pervasive surveillance. With enough ALPR >units on the road, combined with iPass and similar systems, we can get a >pretty comprehensive tool for tracking any vehicle we wish... > >Call me paranoid, but the real question is--am I paranoid enough? True. To the extent the cops care enough to keep old records, they can track your car movements, and presumably you, across town or across the country. But they have cell phone records, and ATM and Credit cards to do that with too. And to the extent you can live without a mobile phone and live on cash, you might be able to go without personal transport too. I agree the abuse potential is huge. It would be easy to implement and very effective. But is it really that different from what already exists? Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Tue Oct 27 09:21:16 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:21:16 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> Message-ID: <200910271446.n9REkBtu007858@mail.zarquon.net> At 08:03 10/27/2009 -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote: >An interesting system: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j_On_1zRig > >There's a pretty detailed writeup in Wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition > > From a tech point of view, the weakest part appears to be, at least for >the system shown in the video, that it requires a download before >starting the patrol; I expect, as wireless networks become more >pervasive, both the download and real-time upload of data will become >_de rigeur_. Actually I found this pretty cool. The technology was available in the late 1980s, when I was taking my robotics degree. The problem then was speedy processing. The computers could do the character recognition, but it took up to a minute or so. No faster than a person calling it in manually. And of course computers and cameras themselves were huge, so it would take a van filled with cameras and Sun pizza boxes to get the job done. Now things are small and fast, so its just a pod you can latch onto any patrol car roof or drop into the trunk. >I've some observations about the scanning--up to 3,000 plates/hour--that >I'm going to put over in goglog. People worry about privacy, but to me this is just automating something you would literally be subject to anyway. The cop observes your plate, calls it in, gets a hit or miss. The system observes your plate, calls it in, gets a hit or miss. In the old days a cop wouldn't make the call unless you were "suspicious". The computer doesn't care, it just checks what it can find. On the other hand, plenty of cops were challenged on what, and especially who, they did and did not consider "suspicious". Its hard to accuse a computer of being prejudiced when it is sweeping everything into the net. The system is of course not perfect. It can find expired plates, or reported stolen. But it can't tell you that good plates are on the wrong car (good '78 Toyota plates on a '87 Honda), and it can't necessarily tell you a car has no plates at all. It might be able to actually do that, but probably not reliably enough to keep the cops from getting whiplash. And that last is a big point. No matter what the computer comes up with, the live cops have to decide to act on it. All the old problems of bias come back in, but at least you know they are working on a probably bad guy, not just a "what is he doing in this neighborhood". bill taylor From jazz at qnet.com Tue Oct 27 09:21:16 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:21:16 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> Message-ID: <200910271446.n9REkOHv007875@mail.zarquon.net> At 08:03 10/27/2009 -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote: >An interesting system: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j_On_1zRig > >There's a pretty detailed writeup in Wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition > > From a tech point of view, the weakest part appears to be, at least for >the system shown in the video, that it requires a download before >starting the patrol; I expect, as wireless networks become more >pervasive, both the download and real-time upload of data will become >_de rigeur_. Actually I found this pretty cool. The technology was available in the late 1980s, when I was taking my robotics degree. The problem then was speedy processing. The computers could do the character recognition, but it took up to a minute or so. No faster than a person calling it in manually. And of course computers and cameras themselves were huge, so it would take a van filled with cameras and Sun pizza boxes to get the job done. Now things are small and fast, so its just a pod you can latch onto any patrol car roof or drop into the trunk. >I've some observations about the scanning--up to 3,000 plates/hour--that >I'm going to put over in goglog. People worry about privacy, but to me this is just automating something you would literally be subject to anyway. The cop observes your plate, calls it in, gets a hit or miss. The system observes your plate, calls it in, gets a hit or miss. In the old days a cop wouldn't make the call unless you were "suspicious". The computer doesn't care, it just checks what it can find. On the other hand, plenty of cops were challenged on what, and especially who, they did and did not consider "suspicious". Its hard to accuse a computer of being prejudiced when it is sweeping everything into the net. The system is of course not perfect. It can find expired plates, or reported stolen. But it can't tell you that good plates are on the wrong car (good '78 Toyota plates on a '87 Honda), and it can't necessarily tell you a car has no plates at all. It might be able to actually do that, but probably not reliably enough to keep the cops from getting whiplash. And that last is a big point. No matter what the computer comes up with, the live cops have to decide to act on it. All the old problems of bias come back in, but at least you know they are working on a probably bad guy, not just a "what is he doing in this neighborhood". bill taylor From ignatz at dminet.com Tue Oct 27 10:07:38 2009 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:07:38 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> <200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <20091027150737.GA7387@dminet.com> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 07:26:28AM -0700, Bill Taylor wrote: > I agree the abuse potential is huge. It would be easy to implement > and very effective. But is it really that different from what already exists? Yes. The difference is ease of collection, duration and depth of data automatically collected, and ease of access and post-collection correlation and searching. Essentially, before they had to care about *you*, and go to some specific effort to carry out surveillance. The effort and cost alone meant that, unless you really had done something to call attention to yourself, you had a reasonable expectation that the gummint wasn't observing your activities. (For good or ill.) Today--or soon, if not already--they have an undifferentiated collection of data from multiple sources that collect all information available *and archive it*. Should it be deemed desirable, they can troll through this mass of data, integrating and correlating it after the fact. This is the stuff police state officers could only dream of in the past. And, of course, it's not evil in and of itself; but too often we've seen that power corrupts, and a tool will be used if it exists. And I'm afraid our current laws not only don't properly address misuse, but in the post-9/11 climate, won't--or will address it in ways that aren't good for us, the surveilled. Cheers (or not), -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From bentley at crenelle.com Tue Oct 27 15:57:51 2009 From: bentley at crenelle.com (Michael Brian Bentley) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:57:51 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027150737.GA7387@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> <200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> <20091027150737.GA7387@dminet.com> Message-ID: To compare infrastructure, So far as I know, the wireless phone companies are not yet entirely ready to deal with 911 calls that use the phone GPS coordinates to report where the call is coming from and whether it is moving or not. It isn't much of a leap beyond that for law enforcement to identify a phone to track its coordinates, and I'm sure that the capability exists enough now for law enforcement to ask whether a particular service has the capability and whether the phone provides the data. Say you have a Sheriff Arpaio -like elected official somewhere in your vicinity; he can decide that he needs to see the data collected (in real time) by the nearby toll gates OR spot-check cameras attached strategically on overhead traffic sign structures. They grab only the most interesting reports, chuck the rest, and order patrols to investigate specific vehicles heading their way. They pull you over because you don't have tabs on your plates. They pull the next car over because it is registered in New Mexico and they want to see who's driving through Illinois from New Mexico. From ben at bl.com Tue Oct 27 18:58:02 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:58:02 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> Message-ID: At 8:03 AM -0500 10/27/09, Dave Ihnat wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ >An interesting system: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j_On_1zRig Some countermeasures http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUp-Bg0BF-Y http://stealthoutmyride.com/ -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From ben at bl.com Tue Oct 27 18:58:02 2009 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:58:02 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> Message-ID: At 8:03 AM -0500 10/27/09, Dave Ihnat wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ >An interesting system: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j_On_1zRig Some countermeasures http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUp-Bg0BF-Y http://stealthoutmyride.com/ -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Oct 27 20:07:53 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:07:53 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> <200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor says: > I agree the abuse potential is huge. It would be easy to implement > and very effective. But is it really that different from > what already exists? Well, yes, mostly. That is, it's different from things like phone and ATM records, because the police don't have those completely at their disposal, they need to get them. This system would I gather, be theirs. That's not to say I see a legal objection to it. It's just a better way of collecting information in plain view of the public; and there is no right to drive a vehicle without a visible, recognizable plate. Yes, the resulting database bothers me, but I suspect the only possible restriction on it that we can expect will be to restrict data matching and searches to legitimate police activities. After all, it worked for credit history, right? - Steve "well, maybe a little?" Gruenwald From SteveG at swhi.net Tue Oct 27 20:10:31 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:10:31 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: <20091027150737.GA7387@dminet.com> References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com><200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> <20091027150737.GA7387@dminet.com> Message-ID: Dave Ihnat says: > And, of course, it's not evil in and of itself; but too often > we've seen > that power corrupts, and a tool will be used if it exists. And I'm > afraid our current laws not only don't properly address misuse, but in > the post-9/11 climate, won't--or will address it in ways that aren't > good for us, the surveilled. Leaving aside the "post-911" issues, restrictions on misuse of police data *by police* but for purely personal reasons don't end to work very well. - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Tue Oct 27 20:44:46 2009 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:44:46 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> Message-ID: <200910280146.n9S1kOit019737@mail.zarquon.net> At 18:58 10/27/2009 -0500, Ben Liberman wrote: >At 8:03 AM -0500 10/27/09, Dave Ihnat wrote: > > >An interesting system: > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j_On_1zRig > >Some countermeasures > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUp-Bg0BF-Y > >http://stealthoutmyride.com/ >-- Through some unfortunate accident, the front plate on my truck is bent at an angle that would make it very hard to read from a high angle. Like a redlight camera on a tall pole, for instance. Anyone down at an ordinary height can see it easily though, so it isn't like it is obscured or defaced. The front plate on the other car is mounted a different way, so that kind of accident is harder to /a/r/r/a/n/g/e occur. Bill Taylor From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net Wed Oct 28 21:20:56 2009 From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:20:56 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com> <200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: On 2009-Oct-27 , at 20:07, Steve Gruenwald wrote: > That's not to say I see a legal objection to it. It's just > a better way of collecting information in plain view of the > public; and there is no right to drive a vehicle without a > visible, recognizable plate. Yes, the resulting database > bothers me, but I suspect the only possible restriction on > it that we can expect will be to restrict data matching and > searches to legitimate police activities. I guess what I'd like to see is legislation prohibiting the transfer of any of these data to long-term storage, with an exception for plates of cars belonging to "persons of interest" or their known associates. Presumably, the exception would require a magistrate's approval, as for a search warrant. I doubt we're likely to get that, though. Mark Hagerman From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Oct 29 06:51:20 2009 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:51:20 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] ALPR In-Reply-To: References: <20091027130349.GB811@dminet.com> <20091027135719.GF811@dminet.com><200910271446.n9REkBA3007856@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Mark Hagerman says: > I guess what I'd like to see is legislation prohibiting the > transfer of any of these data to long-term storage, with an > exception for plates of cars belonging to "persons of > interest" or their known associates. Presumably, the > exception would require a magistrate's approval, as for > a search warrant. I doubt we're likely to get that, though. Come to think of it, legally speaking - not necessarily sensibly, just legally - it seems to me there *may* be a basis for restriction, at least at the Federal level, under the Privacy Act (and probably some state versions). While any one observation of a vehicle, coupled with the legal ability to identify the owner, is clearly not personal information, a collection that effectively traces the car's (and potentially the person's) movements *may* be. (I'd have to research it.) The Privacy Act restricts collecting and saving personal information, not only misusing it. This is a separate concept from "search and seizure," of course. On that basis a magistrate's approval would probably *not* be required, but it would have to fall under a statutory exception. Probably some basis would be needed to say that it was collected for legitimate law enforcement purposes (such as where the movements of a particular individual - or his car, or individuals likely to be using it - would be relevant to an investigation). But again, aside from the fact that I'm not sure of this argument, I'm only speaking of the Federal Privacy Act, not state laws, which may or may not have similar criteria, and certainly state courts would interpret them differently. The only universal law that covers state intrusions into personal privacy is the Constitution, and so far it seems difficult to make an argument against this system based on that. And of course Mark said he'd like to see legislation, and I'm talking about existing laws - but I think they may be a useful guide that what is politically feasible. I'd be surprised if the US Government passed any new laws directly restricting the ability of state law enforcement agencies in this area. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Thu Oct 29 14:40:00 2009 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:40:00 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Learned a new word today In-Reply-To: <25B15CD7310F4010B3F0859661BD378E@StevePC> References: <200910252120.n9PLKrQR009711@mail.zarquon.net> <25B15CD7310F4010B3F0859661BD378E@StevePC> Message-ID: Steve G wrote: > If a snippet is all you've seen, go rent ["Inherit the Wind"]. > It's one of the truly great ones. Although dramatized, it's surprising > how much of the important (and *some* of the dramatic) stuff happened > in real life. To a certain extent. The trial is portrayed as the attempted judicial persecution of "Cates" by hostile religious fanatics who dominate the town. This is completely false. The trial was a put-up by a group of prominent townsmen (one of them well known as a "free-thinker"). They thought the law would be controversial, that a "show trial" was likely, and that having the "show trial" in Dayton would bring in a lot of reporters and spectators who would spend money. Mencken's depiction of Dayton as a hive of ignorant yokels was a nasty caricature. Scopes agreed to be the defendant, even though he couldn't remember whether he'd actually taught the offending part of the textbook during his stint as substitute science teacher. What else? The defense team were all prominent attorneys working pro bono; they jumped at the opportunity as soon as the trial was announced. Mencken's paper, the Baltimore _Sun_, was involved only to the extent of paying Scopes' bail. The play and movie omit the character of Darrow's two co-counsels, Arthur Hays and Dudley Field Malone. Malone is credited with making the best courtroom speech of any of the attorneys; even the largely Southern audience found him more impressive than Bryan. But of course a drama has to be a good story, and one can't let the truth get in the way too much. (There _were_ American prisoners in the camp from which the "Great Escape" was made, as in the movie, but they were all transferred to another camp about two weeks before the break-out. Of course the movie didn't include that.) And as noted, the dramatic confrontation between Darrow and Bryan as a witness really did happen. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From steveg at swhi.net Thu Oct 29 17:01:41 2009 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:01:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Learned a new word today In-Reply-To: References: <200910252120.n9PLKrQR009711@mail.zarquon.net> <25B15CD7310F4010B3F0859661BD378E@StevePC> Message-ID: <28008.144.183.224.2.1256853701.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Rich Rostrom wrote: >> If a snippet is all you've seen, go rent ["Inherit the Wind"]. >> It's one of the truly great ones. Although dramatized, it's surprising >> how much of the important (and *some* of the dramatic) stuff happened >> in real life. > > To a certain extent. I don't know what you're disagreeing with that I said. I said "it's surprising how much of the important (and *some* of the dramatic) stuff happened in real life." A lot of it did, and it is surprising. > The trial is portrayed as the attempted judicial > persecution of "Cates" by hostile religious fanatics > who dominate the town. No, the trial isn't. Have you actually seen the film? The trial is shown as what it was, brought by prosecutors enforcing a newly passed state law. No one actually participating in the trial is portrayed as a religious fanatic (other than Bryan) or as trying to persecute him. Judge Raulston tried hard to maintain an orderly and fair proceeding in reality, and this is shown in the movie. The extent to which there was rancor and outbursts and (arguably excessive) deference to local and religious interests in the trial itself is pretty darned accurate in the movie; it's right there in the trial transcript. The opening prayers were long and strengly sectarian, and there was argument about it; same with the banner over the courthouse steps. And to some extent the movie even played it down. According to Mencken's contemporaneous dispatches - which there is no basis to doubt as to the facts, whatever else may be said about his characterizations - "There is, in fact, a considerable heat in the trial. Bryan and the local lawyers for the State sit glaring at the defense all day and even the Attorney General, A.T. Stewart, who is supposed to have secret doubts about fundamentalism, has shown such pugnacity that it has already brought him to forced apologies." Later, in the course of argument, Stewart declaimed that "That which strikes at the very foundations of Christianity is not entitled to a chance" [to present evidence]. The surrounding atmosphere, OTOH, is something else, and AFAICT the movie did not exaggerate much at all. There were probably no burnings in effigy, and the residents were mainly courteous on the streets of the town. But Dayton was crowded with visiting anti-evolution (and anti-education) agitators, Bryan was making rabble-rousing speeches from the day he arrived (very much like those in the film), and there were night-time outdoor prayer meetings far more extreme than the one shown. > This is completely false. The trial was a put-up by > a group of prominent townsmen (one of them well known > as a "free-thinker"). Actually by the ACLU, who did have a strong interest in the issue. The ACLU was actively seeking a person to challenge the law before Rappleyea came to them. > Mencken's depiction of Dayton as a hive of ignorant > yokels was a nasty caricature. Yes, nasty, as I said; but caricature? Do you have a basis for saying anything in his reporting was inaccurate? In fact, one of his first dispatches said: "The town, I confess, greatly surprised me. I expected to find a squalid Southern village, with darkies snoozing on the horse-blocks, pigs rooting under the houses and the inhabitants full of hookworm and malaria. What I found was a country town full of charm and even beauty -- a somewhat smallish but nevertheless very attractive Westminster or Balair." (And this is largely how it was portrayed in the movie.) But the prejudice, not only against evolution but against education itself, was also there. There were speakers against and pamphleteering about the dangers of education. > Scopes agreed to be the defendant, even though he couldn't > remember whether he'd actually taught the offending part of > the textbook during his stint as substitute science teacher. Actually, he later specifically said he was out sick that day. > What else? The defense team were all prominent attorneys > working pro bono; they jumped at the opportunity as soon > as the trial was announced. Mencken's paper, the Baltimore > _Sun_, was involved only to the extent of paying Scopes' > bail. I believe that's right. What are you contradicting? - Steve G