Why you should never EVER EVER buy an EoTech.

[Bill Katt]

We all know the main reason for readers is NOT finding criminals. It's so they can use the GPS data to track everyone's movements and create databases of movement for everyone.

If you don't see that you're a blind idiot.

If you don't recognize the immediate danger of the gov't having that kind of knowledge you're an even bigger idiot.

But......but......if you're not doing anything wrong................................

 

[Terminator03]

Ban Eotech, and Glocks, and any other item that has been misused by those in power...... for the children.....

After all, inanimate objects are obviously to blame.

I saw a whole bunch of m4 type rifles with all sorts of sights strapped to them shoot up a boat outside of Boston with a single moron inside while a number of atrocities against freedom where commited. Has the OP taken an itemized list of their gear to know not what to buy as well?

I think you may be may be missing part of his point. This device was designed for one purpose and type of use, unlike all of the things you listed. I personally like my Eotech and have no qualms about using it despite the fact that the company decided to develop another technology to expand their business. It does suck though when companies pander to .gov in that manner.

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

I think you may be may be missing part of his point. This device was designed for one purpose and type of use, unlike all of the things you listed. I personally like my Eotech and have no qualms about using it despite the fact that the company decided to develop another technology to expand their business. It does suck though when companies pander to .gov in that manner.

Couldn't I use the same logic to apply to the police cruiser the cameras are attached to? Or how about the hollow point bullets in the officers side arm? After all, isn't a hollow point bullet "designed use" only one thing?

I'm a big fan of holding people accountable, as the "misuse" of an object can only happen with human intent

 

[pastera]

Is it statist to believe that a plate reader linked to a database containing plates of stolen cars and owners with warrants is a legitimate use of this technology?
The fact that a plate number is linked to a warrant or is reported stolen would be probable cause for a search. That search would only happen if the system reported to an officer (local or remote) that the plate was spotted. If no data is stored then no search actually occurs.

 

[Terminator03]

Couldn't I use the same logic to apply to the police cruiser the cameras are attached to? Or how about the hollow point bullets in the officers side arm? After all, isn't a hollow point bullet "designed use" only one thing?

I'm a big fan of holding people accountable, as the "misuse" of an object can only happen with human intent

Not sure where you are going with your examples because to that end one could argue that even guns themselves are designed with one purpose at the most basic level, even though they are used by civilians as well as military and police. The plate scanner has zero application in the civilian market, and was obviously designed for one particular customer and use. I believe that was what Don was pointing out, but it ultimately became a huge pissing match about boycotting everything that may be used by the police, or .gov. I agree with you about holding the users responsible, but why would they NOT use a tool like that when its available and makes their job easier (even at the cost of personal liberty)? Who is going to hold them accountable?

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

Not sure where you are going with your examples because to that end one could argue that even guns themselves are designed with one purpose at the most basic level

Yes, this is my exact point. The camera / scanner is not different than a firearm. It's an object, a tool, and it nor its mfg is inherently evil for producing it....

Instead of crying that a company can produce a tool that my be used improperly, why not work on fixing the fact that you allow your law enforcement to break the law?

Like I said, it's a lame OP. If we are going to boycott every tool that law enforcement or the .gov has used to violate our rights we will have very few options left at our disposal

EDIT: In reference to the last line of your post, WE are supposed to keep them accountable.

 

[Terminator03]

Yes, this is my exact point. The camera / scanner is not different than a firearm. It's an object, a tool, and it nor its mfg is inherently evil for producing it....

Instead of crying that a company can produce a tool that my be used improperly, why not work on fixing the fact that you allow your law enforcement to break the law?

Like I said, it's a lame OP. If we are going to boycott every tool that law enforcement or the .gov has used to violate our rights we will have very few options left at our disposal

EDIT: In reference to the last line of your post, WE are supposed to keep them accountable.

Ok, it seems as though we are basically on the same page, but I was misunderstanding your intent. Sorry about that.

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

Ok, it seems as though we are basically on the same page, but I was misunderstanding your intent. Sorry about that.

No prob here.

I have no problem with Don's feeling as though HE shouldn't purchase an Eotech product, as frankly I don't care..... But, the title of the thread implies NOBODY should purchase an Eotech product based on a very narrow line of logic. I persoanlly disagree with his logic as I persoanlly feel it is no different than a "liberal" blaming guns for the death of children.

 

[Aaron[MA]]

Instead of crying that a company can produce a tool that my be used improperly, why not work on fixing the fact that you allow your law enforcement to break the law?

LE is not using the tool improperly. They're using it precisely for its one and only purpose.
It's objectionable that someone would create that tool and promote it's use.



AA

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

LE is not using the tool improperly. They're using it precisely for its one and only purpose.
It's objectionable that someone would create that tool and promote it's use.



AA

Care to elaborate?

 

[Aaron[MA]]

It's designed to
capture plate numbers from EVERY vehicle that the equipped cruiser drives past
run all those numbers against a "hot list" and alert for any hits
Save time date and location of EVERY single plate in a database
they even offer to analyze that data for trends patterns, etc.

it's used exactly as such, no?


AA

 

[Aaron[MA]]

Related question:

Was just reading an article on reason.com about DHS starting to collect iris and facial recognition scans, http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/28/dhs-to-start-collecting-iris-and-facial

The last paragraph said:

The only way to push back is to question whether this will actually address real problems, follow its deployment every step of the way, design workable restraints on its misuse, and come up with the next iteration of technology that will render this sort of prone-to-abuse stuff obsolete.

Which made me think about ways to defeat the L3 technology we've been discussing here.
I started really simple: What are the laws regarding license plate visibility for PARKED cars? Does a car parked on a public way have to have a visible plate? Could you defeat this tech (at least while you're parked) by simply covering your plate?

 

[browncoat]

Related question:

Was just reading an article on reason.com about DHS starting to collect iris and facial recognition scans, http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/28/dhs-to-start-collecting-iris-and-facial

The last paragraph said:



Which made me think about ways to defeat the L3 technology we've been discussing here.
I started really simple: What are the laws regarding license plate visibility for PARKED cars? Does a car parked on a public way have to have a visible plate? Could you defeat this tech (at least while you're parked) by simply covering your plate?

I like this idea! Maybe you could set up a plate cover that would be transparent when powered but opaque when the car is off.

 

[dcmdon]

By that same logic, you shouldn't own a Glock as PD's have used them to shoot dogs.

Lame OP at best

I'm the OP.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference. I'll type slow so you can follow along.

This L3 device is designed SOLELY for the purpose of infringing on the right so citizens. If you want to make a glock reference, it would be like if Glock came out with an anal probe that was marketed to police to search suspected drug offenders.

Speaking of . . .

- - - Updated - - -

Related question:

Was just reading an article on reason.com about DHS starting to collect iris and facial recognition scans, http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/28/dhs-to-start-collecting-iris-and-facial

The last paragraph said:



Which made me think about ways to defeat the L3 technology we've been discussing here.
I started really simple: What are the laws regarding license plate visibility for PARKED cars? Does a car parked on a public way have to have a visible plate? Could you defeat this tech (at least while you're parked) by simply covering your plate?

I don't know about parking on the street. But if you are parked in a parking lot, its most likely private property with no requirement to show plates. The trick would be a LCD cover that could be made opaque by applying a voltage to it.

Don

 

[browncoat]

I'm the OP.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference. I'll type slow so you can follow along.

This L3 device is designed SOLELY for the purpose of infringing on the right so citizens. If you want to make a glock reference, it would be like if Glock came out with an anal probe that was marketed to police to search suspected drug offenders.

Speaking of . . .

- - - Updated - - -



I don't know about parking on the street. But if you are parked in a parking lot, its most likely private property with no requirement to show plates. The trick would be a LCD cover that could be made opaque by applying a voltage to it.

Don

The L3 is not only good for LE. Imagine that you are a company in the business of repossessing vehicles, it would be a very useful tool for you as well.

It would be very hard to convince me that some technological development is not an agnostic one (ie purely good or evil).

 

[Admin]

You shouldn't buy an EoTech because they suck.

 

[ScottS]

I'm the OP.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference. I'll type slow so you can follow along.

This L3 device is designed SOLELY for the purpose of infringing on the right so citizens.

Well, I disagree with you as well. I hope you don't feel obligated to be a condescending jerk to me, too. Reasonable people can understand your arguement and still disagree with it.

I have no problem with cruising the parking lots with a plate scanner tied to a database of stolen cars, as long as the "non-hit" data is dumped and not kept, but that's a legislative control on the use of the technology.

The technology is agnostic, and IMO has useful and dangerous applications. The solution is not to boycott EoTech (a tiny, non-related cog in a $12B wheel), but to legislatively control the use.

 

[Terminator03]

For those looking to hide their plates, there are several products within the hotrod world to accomplish hiding them very effectively. Most work with either an electronic solenoid, or via vacuum cylinder to retract the plate under a bumper, or grill area. They are mainly designed for show type vehicles so the plate doesn't take away from the aesthetic of the car, and are usually wired to the ignition switch so the plate automatically flips into readable position when the car is running, and then retracts when the ignition is off. Personally, I'm not concerned enough to employ these on a daily driver for this reason, but I have used them in show car applications in the past. I'm not concerned since the only gun show I ever attend is occasionally the one at the Big E, and I generally park off grounds and walk in to avoid wasting even more money over the cover charge to get in. I hate that between parking and entry, you are already out a $20 bill before you even enter the building just to browse!

 

[weldingmachine]

I like this idea! Maybe you could set up a plate cover that would be transparent when powered but opaque when the car is off.

Good idea!

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Im sure if you ask real nice they will tell you the truth about the database they are compiling. You do believe that everyone that works for government tells the truth right ?
After all they are from the government and are here to help!!!

I swear some people are so guĺllable.

Theres always this

http://www.photoblocker.com/photoshield.html

This is where it crosses the line to me.

Running a plate is totally different than tracking plates and creating a database of who travels where and when. They should address people who are wanted for warrants or stealing cars, but not keep tabs on anyone else.

If the technology logs every plate it scans and location, than i take issue with it. If it doesn't log data and only brings wanted individuals to the officer's attention, i don't see it as a constitutional issue.

 

[RoterTeufel]

It also comes down when, if this technology is used to track its citizens for doing otherwise legal activities.

No to thread hi-jack, but 2 days ago news story came out that ACLU had a hand in finding information obtained through FOIA about ATF & DEA using this technology at gun shows.


https://www.aclu.org/blog/technolog...ed-monitor-gun-show-attendees-license-plate-r

Its a matter of not if, but when the technology will be abused. It certainly has the potential.

ETA: Plan was abandoned.

 

[hbar26]

Some info here.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/technolog...-documents-license-plate-scanners-reveal-mass

 

[dcmdon]

Well, I disagree with you as well. I hope you don't feel obligated to be a condescending jerk to me, too. Reasonable people can understand your arguement and still disagree with it.

I have no problem with cruising the parking lots with a plate scanner tied to a database of stolen cars, as long as the "non-hit" data is dumped and not kept, but that's a legislative control on the use of the technology.

The technology is agnostic, and IMO has useful and dangerous applications. The solution is not to boycott EoTech (a tiny, non-related cog in a $12B wheel), but to legislatively control the use.

Scott I was condescending because I was responding to a fairly uncivil condescending post. (See Post #42) I am very happy to disagree civilly. In fact I pride myself on that.

Again, my point is that this device has no legitimate law enforcement purpose.

 

[Lank]

Suspicious patterns? WTF does that mean?

 

[Gillham]

BOYCOTT EVERYTHING.

Remember that time Aimpoint only sold PRO's to LE? BOYCOTT AIMPOINT!

 

[Gillham]

This L3 device is designed SOLELY for the purpose of infringing on the right so citizens.
Don

They're scanning license plates for violations - what part is infringing on citizen's rights? You don't own the license plate, the state does. FWIW, it's no different than someone standing on the side of the road, copying your information down as your drive around, LEO or not. It just automates the process and makes things quicker. We've got bigger issues than to worry about ALPR being used on cars. Not to mention the ALPR in MA don't work very well because of the Red lettering on white backgrounds.

 

[ScottS]

Scott I was condescending because I was responding to a fairly uncivil condescending post. (See Post #42) I am very happy to disagree civilly. In fact I pride myself on that.

Again, my point is that this device has no legitimate law enforcement purpose.

On this, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

How can you say that scanning for stolen cars is not a legitimate LE purpose? How is that different than a cop cruising a parking lot with a clip-board of stolen license numbers, which is what they used to do. I don't recall anyone bitching about that.

It seems you object to them using the system for other purposes, and I think most of us agree with you on that. But the propensity for misuse doesn't mean there's no legitimate use.

 

[modnaru]

Behold, another product from L3. Enough to make the founders roll over in their graves.

[video=youtube_share;VvFLZmVuqbw]http://youtu.be/VvFLZmVuqbw[/video]

The problem IMHO is not really the license palte reader itself. The problem is that the data is retained and stored for unknown amounts of time and used for data mining and tracking. If it simply had a list of license plates it was looking for and would immediately delete all information about non-matching plates, I would not have many concerns.

 

[Gillham]

The problem IMHO is not really the license palte reader itself. The problem is that the data is retained and stored for unknown amounts of time and used for data mining and tracking. If it simply had a list of license plates it was looking for and would immediately delete all information about non-matching plates, I would not have many concerns.

Agreed - In my line of work, we have a 14-day retention policy before it automatically gets overwritten for more data. Unless there's a significant event, that data is gone. If it's marked to be saved, then it isn't.

From my experience a PD wouldn't even know how to recall data from 2-months ago on a ALPR system - unless they had a tech savvy officer.