←back to thread

Show HN: Automated license plate reader coverage in the USA

(alpranalysis.com)
239 points sodality2 | 2 comments | 10 Dec 25 17:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.489s | source

Built this over the last few days, based on a Rust codebase that parses the latest ALPR reports from OpenStreetMaps, calculates navigation statistics from every tagged residential building to nearby amenities, and tests each route for intersection with those ALPR cameras (Flock being the most widespread).

These have gotten more controversial in recent months, due to their indiscriminate large scale data collection, with 404 Media publishing many original pieces (https://www.404media.co/tag/flock/) about their adoption and (ab)use across the country. I wanted to use open source datasets to track the rapid expansion, especially per-county, as this data can be crucial for 'deflock' movements to petition counties and city governments to ban and remove them.

In some counties, the tracking becomes so widespread that most people can't go anywhere without being photographed. This includes possibly sensitive areas, like places of worship and medical facilities.

The argument for their legality rests upon the notion that these cameras are equivalent to 'mere observation', but the enormous scope and data sharing agreements in place to share and access millions of records without warrants blurs the lines of the fourth amendment.

Show context
yannyu ◴[10 Dec 25 20:28 UTC] No.46223289[source]▶
I've thought about this a lot as I see more and more reckless driving in the areas I live in. Surveillance is generally a net negative, but it's also bad when you see people speeding around schools, rolling through stop signs, and running red lights. We seem to have a worst of all situations where traffic is getting increasingly difficult to enforce, driving is getting more dangerous year by year, and we're terrified of government overreach if we add any automation at all to enforcement.

I don't know the solution, but I do know that in the US we've lost 10-15 years of progress when it comes to traffic fatalities.

replies(21): >>46223317 #>>46223332 #>>46223650 #>>46223843 #>>46224145 #>>46224165 #>>46224204 #>>46224218 #>>46226450 #>>46226479 #>>46227209 #>>46227657 #>>46229645 #>>46229870 #>>46229990 #>>46230607 #>>46232310 #>>46232462 #>>46233814 #>>46234258 #>>46246685 #
dylan604 ◴[11 Dec 25 01:15 UTC] No.46226450[source]▶
We cracked down on driving under the influence with changes from DWI to DUI. In the 10-15 years you mention, the prevalence of distracted driving from mobile devices has gotten out of hand. There's no field sobriety test that can prove one was distracted by a device. That makes this much more difficult to crack down on.
replies(1): >>46226930 #
loeg ◴[11 Dec 25 02:27 UTC] No.46226930[source]▶
Sure, though it is very easy to visually identify drivers looking at their phones. (Unless they have illegal tint.)
replies(1): >>46227478 #
1. dylan604 ◴[11 Dec 25 03:57 UTC] No.46227478[source]▶
Only if you're driving next to the car. Speeding obviously can be detected from a distance. Driving under the influence also can be seen from a distance.

I could see having a cop and a camera stationed in a place working as a spotter that then radios to other cops up ahead to pull over in an old school speed trap set up. However, that would take a lot of man power and coordination that I doubt most departments would care to do. We've seen plenty of YT videos of people trying to make a point of catching distracted drivers. The cops just need to give a shit, and want to do something about it.

replies(1): >>46227584 #
2. loeg ◴[11 Dec 25 04:13 UTC] No.46227584[source]▶
It doesn’t take a targeted trap or driving next to. It’s like 1 in 6 drivers at any time; it’s super easy to spot if you’re looking. One cop could pick off drivers no problem without any coordination.