Hacker News Reader

Comment by kd5bjo | Hacker News Reader

I’m not a lawyer, so this is just idle speculation, but the relationships I see are:

* Like the GPS trackers, license plates are devices designed to aid in identifying and locating a vehicle from a distance by technological means.

* Like the chalk marks, the government is using these devices indiscriminately, without probable cause.

* For bonus points, license plates are compelled speech, like requiring you to introduce yourself with your real name to everyone you meet.

It’S certainly not a guaranteed win, but it’s not so far fetched that I’d be surprised to see a competent lawyer try it.

View on HN

> Like the GPS trackers, license plates are devices designed to aid in identifying and locating a vehicle from a distance by technological means.

License plates originated in the early 1900s, long before color film cameras were a thing, and more than a century before inexpensive, at-scale license plate readers were a thing.

License plates were devices designed to aid police officers in identifying a vehicle from up close by requesting a license plate check.

It was remarkable in 2002's Bourne Identity when the highly-trained agent remarked that he knew the license plate numbers of every vehicle in the lot, and the implication that he'd recall them if they happened across the same cars again was scary.

The fact that it costs almost nothing to outfit every meter reader with a license plate scanner and log the motion of people and cars in a central database is an accident caused by the progress of technology, not a design goal of the license plate.

Preventing abuse of technologies as they become possible is a hard problem.

> is an accident caused by the progress of technology, not a design goal of the license plate

It certainly wasn’t a design goal for 1910-era license plates, but it probably is for 2010-era license plates. The only way to really know would be to subpoena the records relating to the most recent redesign process.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can drive without license plates on private property all you want.

Not everything is binary. Driving is a privilege, yes, but making use of the privilege does not imply forfeiture of civil rights. A balance has to be struck.

And many, many people are perfectly ok with the balance of "if you want to drive on public roads, you have to display a somewhat-opaque identifier on your vehicle so you can be held accountable if you screw up".

As people point out, the opacity has lessened over time, and it's reasonable to question if we should re-evaluate how it's being used. Kind of like how social security numbers have changed their role in society.

License plates not being required will lead to abuse of driving privileges, an imbalance.

Being required to identify yourself and related property in relation to suspected crimes (with probable cause) is acceptable. E.G. "License and Registration please, you are suspected of committing X and possibly other crimes."

Being required to wear a real-name badge in a public place is much more unsettling.

In a great many cities, this right is actually restricted. City codes often prohibit parking unregistered/expired vehicles on private property if they're visible.

Yeah... that's to prevent blight, having a neighbor who has a de facto junk yard in their front yard is really bad for property values.

If your unregistered car is not in disrepair and you aren't storing multiple cars in your front yard, you're very unlikely to be cited.

I just looked up my town ordinance and it only applies to "junk motor vehicles."

> I just looked up my town ordinance and it only applies to "junk motor vehicles."

And just exactly who determines this "junk" status?

Humans, naturally. Usually a subclass of humans we call "judges" whose job it is to decide on these matters.

Snark aside, law isn't code and the "reasonable person" test works well in most cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

We have bylaw officers in my town. They would be the ones to decide what a junk vehicle is and obviously they are not experts in every area possible so they just use their judgement and make a call. Some other person who applied for a job in my city that my taxes pay gets to determine if my stuff is crap or not. Of course you can always take the city to court if they are acting inappropriately. What criteria do they use? I am going to guess the does the car look like crap test. If so get ride of it. Or how about when did you insure or drive the car last? Not for years well get rid of it. The fact of the matter is, like others have said, no one wants a neighbor that collects a bunch of cars that just rot and look like crap. No one is asking people to get working vehicles and get rid of them. Also, the city gives you plenty of warning. You could show them look the car drives or your intent to fix it. No different then if they determine your yard isn't clean enought....I personally like long grass and bugs, the city not so much. Some person gets to decide is the answer.

In my county junk is defined as incapable of moving under it's own power.

That plus a leeway of 1 week is a fairly objective standard.

I believe in my city a car parked on the streets has to be moved at least once every three days.

To put that another way, middle-class and wealthy people don't like to see poor people.

The way most places I'm aware of structure it is vehicles that don't have current registration or that can't move under their own power. That's potentially more broad than "junk" but also a more objective standard.

This sort of law can have a severe impact on poor people. Imagine you're barely getting by, then your car breaks down. This is not unlikely because as you're barely getting by, you have an older car and you're not having it maintained professionally on a rigorous schedule. It's going to be a while before you can afford the parts - let's say a "new" transmission from a junkyard. It sure would help if you didn't have to pay $100/month to keep insurance on it though. Of course, that means you have to turn in the license plate, or they'll suspend your driver's license (in certain jurisdictions).

A lot of people have to sell their car for scrap in this situation, which does not give them anywhere near enough to replace it with something reliable.

FWIW, that is not exactly true (in the US). Driving is not an explicitly enumerated right, but it cannot be taken away without due process, so it's more than a privilege.

>Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Given it's impact on day to day life, perhaps it is time to change that.

Law does work by similarity, but to the features cited in the decision rationale (here and in the GPS case, physical trespass without probable cause), not similarities unrelated to the decision rationale.

It's practically required to carry a transponder in your car on the east coast as there are many toll roads and they are in the process of phasing out cash.

There are companies that want to turn your cell phone into that transponder so that you can just use your phone as a universal transponder.

This seems likely to happen. Once it does, will having a smart phone with this feature enabled be required to drive on a road? If so, it is seems likely that this requirement will be challenged in court, but what's the difference between being required to have a plate on your car or an app on your phone?

> * For bonus points, license plates are compelled speech, like requiring you to introduce yourself with your real name to everyone you meet.

That's why I won't get a amateur radio plate any more. Anybody can look up my callsign and figure out who I am. And I'm legally required to show it.

At least a license plate has some obfuscation between plate# and human who registered it.

Sorry, is it a requirement to introduce oneself with his real name to everyone they meet?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com