Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Why would a license plate point to a person (Score 1) 129 129

I will quote my own post, tasteless as that is:

I'll try not to get bogged down by the nitty-gritty

I'm not trying to argue that people don't break the law; however, as a sweeping general statement, could agree that actions that are not unlawful are more likely to be performed by the majority of people than actions that are unlawful?

The reason I think it's important to at least try to maintain privacy with regards to license plates is that they are a matter of public record and, more to the point, we've instated rules that make it much easier to make that identification STICK. This contrasts with IP addresses, which are not a "public record" and the sharing of which is socially acceptable (or in many cases even encouraged)!

Comment: Re:Why would a license plate point to a person (Score 1) 129 129

That sounds like the car equivalent of a geek with a cantenna...or just a charged laptop.

First, taking someone's license plate isn't sharing it. Literally. They can't use it at the same time as you. However, I'll try not to get bogged down by the nitty-gritty; instead, here's the difference, as I see it: sharing (duplicating and using) your license plate with another vehicle at the same time is unlawful. Sharing your internet connection ISN'T unlawful, though possibly unwise.

Comment: Re:Why would a license plate point to a person (Score 4, Insightful) 129 129

Because multiple cars don't share the same license plate. Besides, even if it's just multiple drivers sharing one car (analogous to multiple users on one computer), the "owner" of the car should only be punished incidentally for crimes/violations committed by other people driving the car.

Comment: *gasp* (Score 3, Interesting) 83 83

What the actual fuck?! What did they do before Stingrays? Not catch anybody? Good fucking grief!

The above was my initial reaction, anyway. I checked the article; seems to have been updated to say 4300 times, which is not such a jaw-dropper. Also, I'd be interested to know whether that covers every time the device was used to intercept or track a mobile device (4300 is a number I could believe, if not like) or if that was the number of court-orders/warrants obtained (4300 still seems ridiculously over-used).

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.