Hacker News Reader

Comment by phantom784 | Hacker News Reader

Privacy could be a use case for those e ink license plates that have started showing up in California.

Instead of the "real" number, change the plate every 5 minutes using some sort of OTP algorithm. Makes it impossible for anyone with a camera to put together a location database, but the car is still identifiable by law enforcement if necessary.

View on HN

Had never heard of these plates. At least the current models may well make the problem worse:

> "In addition to the flexibility of the display, the digital plates also sport a tracking device that will alert the police to the location of a stolen vehicle and allow for general vehicle tracking. While a lot of people can get behind the idea of never going to the DMV again, not a lot of people are thrilled about the whole “license plate as tracking device” angle"

From: https://www.reviewgeek.com/4225/california-unveils-new-e-ink...

Completely pointless, the thieves already swap license plates out on the stolen vehicles.

Depends where the thieves discard the old license plates.

An OTP license plate scheme is a very interesting idea. The license plate would probably have to get larger to accommodate more characters.

EDIT: I wonder why you got downvoted. I've recently been seeing a lot of downvoted comments that there's little conceivable reason to downvote, so I wonder if downvoting is a new way of trolling.

Well, for starters, if you witness a hit and run and don't note the EXACT time along with the plate number, you're outta luck.

Assuming that the function that generates the plate numbers from the current time and a per plate seed is deterministic this shouldn't be a problem.

You tell the police you saw the car with plate 2XYZ345 do a hit on run and give a time range. The state would have the seeds in its plate owner database and could generate a list of all cars that had 2XYZ345 sometime in that time range.

Good point!

Presumably such a system would keep a history of expired identifiers, so law enforcement could still look it up after it's been expired and replaced with a new one.

It is being downvoted because it is a silly idea. These systems are ran in cooperation with the state, who in turn would just un-OTP your plate at the time of scan. That means average citizens are the only ones who would end up with less data.

That means average citizens are the only ones who would end up with less data

That doesn't sound like a drawback, I can understand the public benefit of the police being able to look me up by license plate number but not for the average citizen being able to do the same. This is separate from the issue that there should be stricter limits on law enforcement use of the data.

I can understand the public benefit of the government being able to stalk me but not for the average citizen being able to do the same. When the government does it, it's obviously for The Greater Good™.

That's not what GP said. There are legitimate reasons for the government to track people, there are not legitimate reasons for private citizens to do so. That doesn't mean all tracking by the government is "for the greater good", but at least there is a chance it's acceptable. There is no chance with private citizens.

Average citizens are not the ones operating bulk collection systems. They are simply writing down a plate number of the car parked next to them when they find a giant door scratch in a parking lot.

This would still work if they also write down the time. Or take a photo.

It was clearly an idea worth discussing judging by the follow up comments, downvoting on HN is for unproductive comments not disagreement.

To the parent comments point, I have noticed more downvotes on valid but disagreeable comments recently, I think there might be some weight to it anecdotally.

> Makes it impossible for anyone with a camera to put together a location database, but the car is still identifiable by law enforcement if necessary.

Isn't it LEO that's deploying most of these systems? At least around here, *MOST* of the motorola cameras I see are on public roads / traffic signals. Bit of google shows EFF and other orgs FOIA-ing various counties in CA and a lot of them got federal money for their police to install them...

Privacy is a luxury only the rich can buy.

Look at Flock Safety for a private company doing this with private entities and sharing the results with law enforcement "partners".

"Now, you go from a crime in progress to instantly find the suspect when you search by:

Visual Evidence

- Vehicle make, type, and color

- License plate (missing plate, covered plate, state of the license plate)

- Unique features (roof rack, bumper stickers, and window stickers)

- Contextual Evidence

Timestamp

- Number of times this vehicle has been seen in the last 30 days

- Associated vehicles"

"Neighborhoods and businesses can download vehicular evidence, get a case number, and give it to the assigned detective. Vehicle data and license plates are the most requested piece of evidence.

If a known stolen vehicle or wanted person enters the community, local police will instantly get an alert on their cell phone or laptop. Up to 60% of stolen vehicles are associated with additional crime."

"With the Flock Safety network, your [law enforcement] agency is not limited to cameras you own — connect and collaborate with adjacent agencies and nearby privately-owned cameras in neighborhoods to extend your reach and multiply your search capacity."

> Makes it impossible for anyone with a camera to put together a location database, but the car is still identifiable by law enforcement if necessary.

First, let me laugh at the idea that state and local LE could technologically do anything that the public is unable to do.

Second, let me cringe at the idea that it's OK for the government to stalk individuals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com