Number plate recognition police cars deployed in SA

[Oracle of Delphi]

September 23, 2009 by Alborz Fallah

As part of a trial for an interesting new system, South Australian police have begun using patrol cars fitted with a camera system capable of instantly reading and analysing number plates of cars driving past.

The Automated Number Plate Recognition camera system will automatically run the number plate of cars through its system and tell the police whether a car is unroadworthy, unregistered, uninsured, or stolen

The idea is to take the element of random checking out and have all cars passing by checked allowing police to better catch law offenders. Additionally the technology can be used to catch criminals by linking known offenders to certain number plates that were spotted in crime scenes.

“As a vehicle licence plate is read by the camera, the image is displayed on an LCD screen visible to police officers and an audible tone alerts police if a registration number plate matches a vehicle of interest,” Assistant Commissioner Killmier said.

The system can read up to 700 license plates per hour and as a vehicle licence plate is read by the camera an audible tone alerts police if the number plate is flagged for any reason.

Whole Article here: http://www.caradvice.com.au/42170/number-p...deployed-in-sa/

[Justin Bimmer]

I think I saw something like this in the A&E show "parking wars" but the technology required the van to drive quite slow to help spot parking violators.

[pow]

I think I saw something like this in the A&E show "parking wars" but the technology required the van to drive quite slow to help spot parking violators.

The repo man has them as well:

Of course, it’s not always that easy. “A guy who’s missed eight or nine payments, well, he knows we’re comin’,” says Ferarolis. “So he tries to hide his car. He’ll park it four blocks from his house, swap cars with a friend, stash it in a relative’s drive, paint it, even park it near a bus stop—he’ll ride a bus a few blocks just to pick up his car.”

To locate such hidden assets, AIR attaches a $7500 pair of infrared cameras on each of three cars and two tow trucks. The cameras face left and right and read license plates on parked cars—about 300 per hour. “We drive in ever-widening circles around a guy’s neighborhood,” says Ferarolis. “We’ll cruise down alleys, through apartment complexes, up and down the rows of cars at the nearest mall.” When the camera reads a plate that’s an “assignment,” a computer riding in the passenger seat goes, “ka-ching!”

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q2/...t_me._22_page_2

State of the Repo Art: The Jerr-Dan Element

Gone in 8 seconds: Behind on your car payments? Well, kiss your assets good-bye.

[ZL-1]

Portuguese police started using this as well. It can instantly match plate numbers whose owners/drivers have large backlogs of unpaid traffic tickets, for example.

[Croc]

Only 700/hr?

Considering that a freeway has a maximum capacity of 2000 cars/lane/hr, this technology isn't quite ready for primetime in the states.

[aaaantoine]

Only 700/hr?

Considering that a freeway has a maximum capacity of 2000 cars/lane/hr, this technology isn't quite ready for primetime in the states.

700 is still a lot of cars. A lot more than the officer can check manually.

Unless the system fails if there are more cars on the road than that. Then yeah, that would be useless on city highways.

[CSpec]

I saw it in Boston this past weekend. The cop just sits parked with 2 box things on the trunk and watches the laptop.

[Camino LS6]

More big brother.

[SAmadei]

More big brother.

I'm sure some HERF could fix the problem. ;-)

[Robert Hall]

Speaking of number plates, I've seen several cars lately with strange plastic plate covers that are very difficult to read the # through, they distort the view of the plate, esp. when seen from an angle. I would think those would be illegal, makes it harder for speed cameras to catch the #.

[SAmadei]

Speaking of number plates, I've seen several cars lately with strange plastic plate covers that are very difficult to read the # through, they distort the view of the plate, esp. when seen from an angle. I would think those would be illegal, makes it harder for speed cameras to catch the #.

Its sort of a Fresnel lens... they are exactly made for defeating speed and red light cameras. In many states its illegal to put ANY covering, clear or not, over the actual numbers... some states are cracking down on plate surrounds, as well.

[Robert Hall]

Its sort of a Fresnel lens... they are exactly made for defeating speed and red light cameras. In many states its illegal to put ANY covering, clear or not, over the actual numbers... some states are cracking down on plate surrounds, as well.

Yeah, they have a new law here about license plate frames that cover the state name. I left off my U. of Michigan plate frame that I used in Colorado, since 'Arizona' at the top of the plate gets covered with 'M GO BLUE'...

[aaaantoine]

Its sort of a Fresnel lens... they are exactly made for defeating speed and red light cameras. In many states its illegal to put ANY covering, clear or not, over the actual numbers... some states are cracking down on plate surrounds, as well.

Mythbusters ran an episode where they tried a bunch of different covers to defeat the camera. None of them worked. The one you guys are talking about might work, but not if it's one of the ones from that episode.

[ShadowDog]

More big brother.

I don't know why it's called 'Big Brother' when, really, it's just a more efficient means to do a job; not to mention protect private property, whether vehicles or just plates from falling to the wrong hands. Why is it such a bad thing to have something other than an officer's eyeballs scoping out for bad things?

[SAmadei]

Mythbusters ran an episode where they tried a bunch of different covers to defeat the camera. None of them worked. The one you guys are talking about might work, but not if it's one of the ones from that episode.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I believed they worked... only that thats why they are selling them and that the legislators feel its creditable enough to outlaw.

Yeah, though covers, the spray on blockers and the pheromones for sale in the back of auto magazines are all snake oil.

Some people put them on to keep their plate clean... yeah... then the UV turns them translucent... its a wonder they don't get pulled over.

[SingleStylish]

They use these in San Antonio, Texas already which is what I thought this article was about. Only a few cars are equipped with the technology because of its expense.

[Camino LS6]

I don't know why it's called 'Big Brother' when, really, it's just a more efficient means to do a job; not to mention protect private property, whether vehicles or just plates from falling to the wrong hands. Why is it such a bad thing to have something other than an officer's eyeballs scoping out for bad things?

Because it makes a mockery of "private" property. Each of these "advances" erodes freedom a bit more, so I oppose them all.

Unlike so many these days, the thing I want most from the authorites is that they leave me alone.

[Robert Hall]

Because it makes a mockery of "private" property. Each of these "advances" erodes freedom a bit more, so I oppose them all.

Unlike so many these days, the thing I want most from the authorites is that they leave me alone.

As they say, if you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about, right?

[Camino LS6]

As they say, if you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Ah, the fallback excuse of authoritarians.

[Robert Hall]

Ah, the fallback excuse of authoritarians.

Then you will love VeriChip. This company apparently has a patent on implantable chips for humans. Just think of the uses--they could be used for tracking and monitoring people, remotely vaccinating people, etc. Lots of possibilities here. Their stock has gone up sharply lately.

[Camino LS6]

Then you will love VeriChip. This company apparently has a patent on implantable chips for humans. Just think of the uses--they could be used for tracking and monitoring people, remotely vaccinating people, etc. Lots of possibilities here. Their stock has gone up sharply lately.

Figures.

The sheeple will consent to anything.

[ShadowDog]

Ah, the fallback excuse of authoritarians.

When the company introduced GPS systems in the plumbing division's vans, the plumbers thought it was a cool idea to help them locate their assignments faster. They later learned through the reprimand of a few crewmen that they got more than they bargained for because the same system was utilized to check on the locations of the vans at any given time. It turned out some of the crewmen were using the vans on the weekend for personal use, charging fuel to the company; also on a few a occasions to stop off at "unapproved locations", such as "the liquor store" during work hours.

So in the case of preventing time and fuel theft, I'd say this kind of equipment has its place.

[Camino LS6]

When the company introduced GPS systems in the plumbing division's vans, the plumbers thought it was a cool idea to help them locate their assignments faster. They later learned through the reprimand of a few crewmen that they got more than they bargained for because the same system was utilized to check on the locations of the vans at any given time. It turned out some of the crewmen were using the vans on the weekend for personal use, charging fuel to the company; also on a few a occasions to stop off at "unapproved locations", such as "the liquor store" during work hours.

So in the case of preventing time and fuel theft, I'd say this kind of equipment has its place.

In some cases, and with informed consent, perhaps.

[pow]

Because it makes a mockery of "private" property. Each of these "advances" erodes freedom a bit more, so I oppose them all.

Unlike so many these days, the thing I want most from the authorites is that they leave me alone.

It's not really "private" property unless it's fully paid for, apparently. The repo man and tow truck companies have been using these for years.

Edited September 25, 2009 by pow

[Camino LS6]

It's not really "private" property unless it's fully paid for, apparently. The repo man and tow truck companies have been using these for years.

It doesn't matter if the driver owns it, or the bank does, it is still private.

[Robert Hall]

It doesn't matter if the driver owns it, or the bank does, it is still private.

But it's registered in a state and driven on public roads..so therefore... kind of a gray area.

[Camino LS6]

But it's registered in a state and driven on public roads..so therefore... kind of a gray area.

Looks black and white to me.

Fishing technologies like this should not be used by law enforcement.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Camino LS6

[pow]

Looks black and white to me.

Fishing technologies like this should not be used by law enforcement.

But what about private companies that use it on public roads?

[eldiablobanshee]

Friend of mine got his car impounded by one of these a week ago.

They can scan you at a prity good speed and a lot of cops have them in middletown new York.

[Croc]

More big brother.

Nope. You're on a public road, you're in public and not entitled to any privacy. That's been case law for years and years and years. Nothing new.

Frankly, I'd want people with suspended licenses removed from the roadway along with habitual drunks and other people who cannot handle the minimum amount of personal responsibility demanded by owning/operating a motor vehicle.

[Camino LS6]

Another authoritarian speaks...

[FAPTurbo]

Because it makes a mockery of "private" property. Each of these "advances" erodes freedom a bit more, so I oppose them all.

Unlike so many these days, the thing I want most from the authorites is that they leave me alone.

Criminals and thieves also make a mockery of private property. Fortunately, a system like this may help to catch them while driving stolen vehicles.

Nope. You're on a public road, you're in public and not entitled to any privacy. That's been case law for years and years and years. Nothing new.

Frankly, I'd want people with suspended licenses removed from the roadway along with habitual drunks and other people who cannot handle the minimum amount of personal responsibility demanded by owning/operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. The big brother argument is invalid because the people operating these vehicles could very well be endangering other people's lives while they drive. Libertarians maintain that people can do what they want, as long as it doesn't cause risk to others, and driving an unlicensed, unregistered or non-roadworthy vehicle does just that.

It's not as if police don't already do this anyways, only now it'll be more efficient. That means they'll be able to be used much more effectively.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Captainbooyah

[Camino LS6]

So, the ends justify the means?

Dangerous thinking there.

[Intrepidation]

This can be very useful for tracking down cars that are stolen, and unregistered vehicles as well as speeders (I'm talking like 20 over the limit not 5 over though), and the like. Odds are if a person is driving around in an unregistered car they aren't a model driver or citizen.

There so many people on the road who should not be on teh road. If anything we make driver's license testing much harder and do not just once, but every 5 years or so. Hell, I think your ability to be allowed to operate a vehicle should be brought into question if you have been cited many times for DUI, excessive speeding, running lights, and being faulted for lots of accidents. I'd love to get stupid people off the road and make driving safer for those of us who have a brain.

[Robert Hall]

So, the ends justify the means?

Dangerous thinking there.

The laws are the laws... if this is a more efficient means of enforcing them, then all the better.

[Camino LS6]

The laws are the laws... if this is a more efficient means of enforcing them, then all the better.

Shock troops and checkpoints work too - want that?

"Papers, please"

So, say they check 700 cars and only find 1 violator. That means the other 699 have had their privacy invaded without probable cause.

Sorry guys, I can't see this as a positive.

I expect the cops to have a reason before they check up on anyone.

Their time would be better spent stopping and ticketing someone who demonstrates that they are not following the rules of the road. It's not like its hard to find someone being an asshat on just about any road at any time.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Camino LS6

[FAPTurbo]

Their time would be better spent stopping and ticketing someone who demonstrates that they are not following the rules of the road. It's not like its hard to find someone being an asshat on just about any road at any time.

This system will likely do just that. Fewer people will need to be used to scan plates, and will instead be able to focus their eyes on what's going on, on the road.

License plates are there for all to see, and they are issued by the government for purposes such as this.

[Camino LS6]

[Croc]

So, say they check 700 cars and only find 1 violator. That means the other 699 have had their privacy invaded without probable cause.

What privacy? What don't you get--public road, you're "in public" and there's ZERO expectation of privacy. Anyone can read your license plate when you drive around, cop, child, or camera reader.

You also use several legal phrases, but you're using them incorrectly. While throwing around that jargon may seem like it makes your argument stronger to less educated people, people who have had even the most basic introductory course in legal reasoning will know that you do not really understand what you are talking about.

Expectations of privacy comprise an interesting segment of case law, with a lot of literature available because of its contentious nature--there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, but rather it has evolved based solely on case law.

"Probable cause" is Law 101, and you're applying it where it does not apply.

[Oracle of Delphi]

What's the difference between this and Drunk Driving roadblocks Camino? The police may check 700 cars and only find 1 violator in that case too! As I recall you were for those roadblocks? Papers please!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

The laws are the laws... if this is a more efficient means of enforcing them, then all the better.

Lol, am i the only one who finds this line funny?

[Camino LS6]

What's the difference between this and Drunk Driving roadblocks Camino? The police may check 700 cars and only find 1 violator in that case too! As I recall you were for those roadblocks? Papers please!

You are mistaken.

I oppose those roadblocks for the exact same reasons.

[Camino LS6]

What privacy? What don't you get--public road, you're "in public" and there's ZERO expectation of privacy. Anyone can read your license plate when you drive around, cop, child, or camera reader.

You also use several legal phrases, but you're using them incorrectly. While throwing around that jargon may seem like it makes your argument stronger to less educated people, people who have had even the most basic introductory course in legal reasoning will know that you do not really understand what you are talking about.

Expectations of privacy comprise an interesting segment of case law, with a lot of literature available because of its contentious nature--there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, but rather it has evolved based solely on case law.

"Probable cause" is Law 101, and you're applying it where it does not apply.

I understand language well enough to know that my usage of the words you call jargon is correct.

Rest assured, as my argument is less a legal one than a philisophical one, I know precisely what I'm talking about.

Sweeps of the sort this technology allows is like fishing with a net, it is indiscriminate and random.

Your assertions of legal expertise are not relevant, this is a simple case of right and wrong.