Awful click-bait headline. The sheriff dep't isn't doing this _specifically_ with "anti-abortion states", they're doing this broadly with other states "including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas".
Not listed in the article is that they also shared with Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee, Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Michigan, Utah, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, New York (State), North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and probably some others that weren't listed.
Is this bad? Absolutely. Is this specifically related to abortion? No.
This will however play well with their local audience. I lived in Sacramento for 13 years, its a pretty liberal town. If you wanna get people upset about some stuff, there are ways to get them hooked in by a headline or sign etc. like this.
Its shoddy from a journalism perspective, but the Sacbee does put out some good reporting otherwise, however they tailor headlines to the intended audience, thats for sure
Not click-bait at all! The headline accurately describes why the EFF is upset.
Here's a second chance to read paragraph 2 that you apparently missed:
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) a digital rights group, has sent Cooper a letter requesting that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office cease sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies that could use it to prosecute someone for seeking an abortion.
> The sheriff dep't isn't doing this _specifically_ with "anti-abortion states", they're doing this broadly with other states "including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas".
The plates sharing with anti-abortion is definitely worth emphasis, because it carries a lot more risk to a lot more people. And potentially causes a lot more harm.
What you call "awful click-bait", I call "literally true as stated". The Sacramento sheriff is, in fact, sharing license plate reader data with anti-abortion states. If you have a problem with that headline, I suspect your actual motivation might be to try and squash news you find inconvenient.
> The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office isn’t the only one sharing that data; in May, EFF released a report showing that 71 law enforcement agencies in 22 California counties — including Sacramento County — were sharing such data. The practice is in violation of a 2015 law that states “a (California law enforcement) agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another (California law enforcement) agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
A friend of mine is a prosecutor in a major metro and said they routinely issue tracking requests for a given license plate and that PRIVATE COMPANIES are doing 75%+ of the tracking, not state or local agencies. These private companies will sell the info to anyone who is willing to pay for it and for any reason at all. This isn't a problem confined to the abortion debate, it's a problem connected to any and all issues you might care about.
> PRIVATE COMPANIES are doing 75%+ of the tracking
My family recently went to an amusement park.
As we drove in, I saw what looked like a license plate reader camera on the inbound gate to the parking.
On the way out, we pull up to pay at the automated gate kiosk and my wife says: "Oh wow! How did they know how long we've been here??"
I answered: "Because they scanned our plate on the way in and now when we pulled into the exit gate"
Part of me thought this was cool (automation!), part of me thought "well, there is no expectation of privacy since we are in public" and part of me thought "this is very big brother but done by private companies"
> use it to prosecute someone for seeking an abortion.
the word “prosecute” intrigues me, how does this work / what people fear? Not familiar with US states legal system…
1. Resident of a state A should follow A’s law even when traveling to state B. That seems weird to me as states/countries usually don’t bind you to their law when you leave their borders. They do it (see “intelligence” agencies) but this seems exceptions. My country won’t send James Bond to catch me smoking pot in South Africa.
2. Resident of state A get an abortion in state B, then sherif of state A got you on their list and wait you at the border and find a legal but absurd way to piss you off as a punishment, eg: waiting for you to double-park where you shouldn’t. Not a good exemple -as a biker I hate cars stationing on my lane- but you got the point.
3. Same as 2. but the sherif lie, eg: “you crossed that red light” (you didn’t). I guess sherif word is more “trustworthy” that yours…
> Resident of a state A should follow A’s law even when traveling to state B. That seems weird to me as states/countries usually don’t bind you to their law when you leave their borders. They do it (see “intelligence” agencies) but this seems exceptions. My country won’t send James Bond to catch me smoking pot in South Africa.
Funny enough, South Korea has explicit laws prohibiting citizens from consuming drugs in other countries, even when it's legal in those countries. [1]
I don't think this would pass muster under the U.S. Constitution, though.
Prosecute may be inaccurate, some states have enacted laws that allow for civil suits to be filed in response to abortions, but not necessarily criminal prosecution. The idea there was to use those suits to dissuade against abortion rather than outlawing it, but now that Roe has been struck down, states don’t need to go this route.
But I believe there also are states that have passed laws against leaving the state to get an abortion and then returning. I don’t think these have yet been challenged on jurisdictional grounds.
This is already done. Highway patrol will often have units that scan plates around them, and if a stolen vehicle is identified, the mobile terminal in the cruiser immediately alerts the officer to the hit.
[+] [-] brightlancer|2 years ago|reply
Not listed in the article is that they also shared with Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee, Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Michigan, Utah, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, New York (State), North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and probably some others that weren't listed.
Is this bad? Absolutely. Is this specifically related to abortion? No.
[+] [-] no_wizard|2 years ago|reply
Its shoddy from a journalism perspective, but the Sacbee does put out some good reporting otherwise, however they tailor headlines to the intended audience, thats for sure
[+] [-] drewcoo|2 years ago|reply
Here's a second chance to read paragraph 2 that you apparently missed:
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) a digital rights group, has sent Cooper a letter requesting that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office cease sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies that could use it to prosecute someone for seeking an abortion.
[+] [-] yellowapple|2 years ago|reply
something something "plausible deniability" something something
[+] [-] watwut|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Analemma_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|2 years ago|reply
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/civil-liberties-groups-de...
https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_1798....
[+] [-] sitkack|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ang_cire|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikece|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexpotato|2 years ago|reply
My family recently went to an amusement park.
As we drove in, I saw what looked like a license plate reader camera on the inbound gate to the parking.
On the way out, we pull up to pay at the automated gate kiosk and my wife says: "Oh wow! How did they know how long we've been here??"
I answered: "Because they scanned our plate on the way in and now when we pulled into the exit gate"
Part of me thought this was cool (automation!), part of me thought "well, there is no expectation of privacy since we are in public" and part of me thought "this is very big brother but done by private companies"
[+] [-] rasz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Karstographer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aziaziazi|2 years ago|reply
the word “prosecute” intrigues me, how does this work / what people fear? Not familiar with US states legal system…
1. Resident of a state A should follow A’s law even when traveling to state B. That seems weird to me as states/countries usually don’t bind you to their law when you leave their borders. They do it (see “intelligence” agencies) but this seems exceptions. My country won’t send James Bond to catch me smoking pot in South Africa.
2. Resident of state A get an abortion in state B, then sherif of state A got you on their list and wait you at the border and find a legal but absurd way to piss you off as a punishment, eg: waiting for you to double-park where you shouldn’t. Not a good exemple -as a biker I hate cars stationing on my lane- but you got the point.
3. Same as 2. but the sherif lie, eg: “you crossed that red light” (you didn’t). I guess sherif word is more “trustworthy” that yours…
[+] [-] x3n0ph3n3|2 years ago|reply
Funny enough, South Korea has explicit laws prohibiting citizens from consuming drugs in other countries, even when it's legal in those countries. [1]
I don't think this would pass muster under the U.S. Constitution, though.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_South_Korea#Kor...
[+] [-] kayodelycaon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] draw_down|2 years ago|reply
But I believe there also are states that have passed laws against leaving the state to get an abortion and then returning. I don’t think these have yet been challenged on jurisdictional grounds.
[+] [-] hbarka|2 years ago|reply
https://abc7news.com/amp/license-plate-thefts-cold-plating-c...
[+] [-] akira2501|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aziaziazi|2 years ago|reply