I think you voluntarily giving up a certain amount of privacy when you choose to drive on the road. Sure yes you can argue most places you don't really have a choice since you need a car. But then I could argue back- if you value that type of privacy SO MUCH then you can choose to move to an area where you can walk or use public transportation.
I just think this is one of those times where the pros heavily outweigh the cons. Criminals and people who should not be on the road can be way more easily tracked with license plates. I can't really think of a situation where I would care that someone is passively recording my plate location as I drive by?
Also what if you are illegally parked somewhere. How is an officer supposed to issue you a ticket without your plates?
But then I could argue back- if you value that type of privacy SO MUCH then you can choose to move to an area where you can walk or use public transportation.
This same style of argument when applied to freedom of speech leads to the appropriately criticized "free speech zones". I have a right to travel and a right to privacy. Saying that I can only use one of these rights at a time is absurd. My opinion on this specific instance might change if the US invested as much into public transportation as it does into roadways, but that is not the case.
I can't really think of a situation where I would care that someone is passively recording my plate location as I drive by?
Driving to a union meeting? Driving to an abortion clinic? Driving to a church of a different religion/denomination than your family? Driving away from an abusive partner?
This is actually a serious debate in the political philosophy community, notably with georgists.
Travel implies that you are traversing some real property on land, sea or air. So the ownership (or lack of ownership) of the property that you're traversing would in theory dictate whether you could cross it and how.
Different countries have different laws in this regard, including "easement" requirements, but it's not universal, hence national borders.
So while it seems like you have the "right," it's not so simple legally or philosophically to determine who is guaranteeing or violating that right at any given moment.
I have a right to travel and a right to privacy. Saying that I can only use one of these rights at a time is absurd.
You are so fixated on the car in this mindeset.
Do you have the right to fly an airplane and have privacy at the same time? If you don't have it in the air, why do you think you should have it on the roads?
Good point with the car fixation. We're very close to easy personalized air travel (eg: the English Channel hoverboard crossing of earlier this summer). License plates are made for objects with a clear front and back, traveling mostly forwards and backwards. How will we identify personal carrier drones? Maybe the answer to this question will move us out of the box and provide a more robust solution to this general license plate issue, and then we can apply that to cars.
"Pros outweighing the cons" is often a solid indicator of a real Constitutional challenge, as most Constitutional protections are around things that the founders decided had pros that outweighed their cons so substantially that they wrote them into the founding document of the nation.
Your comment about illegal parking is a pretty good one for highlighting the consequences though - issuing tickets would become functionally impossible, which would likely result in more booting (which is effective at ensuring compliance by the owner, but wildly counterproductive to the goals of parking restrictions) or towing (which has plenty of its own issues).
I've only started thinking about this today, so I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm more interested in whether or not this sort of thing has every been seriously covered in court given its overlap with other privacy arguments.
The officer can read the less visible VIN. But more importantly, cops aren't everywhere, many laws are structured with this fact in mind. Having a visible license plate enables the bystander or witness of a crime to safely report it so that the accused can be located and investigated/cited/apprehended later by professionals.
I very much understand that this is the "value" of license plates. However, the same argument could be made for requiring everyone to display their social security number, which would pretty obviously not make through a court challenge. As I mentioned elsewhere, having just started thinking about this, I don't have a strong opinion yet, but this is a great example of an argument that strongly overlaps with those made in other privacy cases.
However, the same argument could be made for requiring everyone to display their social security number, which would pretty obviously not make through a court challenge.
I really think that's a stretch. I get the similarity, however driving in a vehicle is not the same as walking down the street.
You need to be registered to have a vehicle, you need to have a drivers license, you need to have insurance. There is nothing you need while walking down the street, except clothes in most places. So there is no good argument for forcing identification.
As I took one step further for someone else, is the next argument going to be you don't have to publicly identify your aircraft when flying? Are we going to argue it removes privacy that an aircraft must identify itself with the FAA?
I know you are just starting to toy with this argument. But I think it's easy enough to find so many differences between a person walking down the street and having a vehicle which we regulate for many good reasons.
Comments
I think you voluntarily giving up a certain amount of privacy when you choose to drive on the road. Sure yes you can argue most places you don't really have a choice since you need a car. But then I could argue back- if you value that type of privacy SO MUCH then you can choose to move to an area where you can walk or use public transportation.
I just think this is one of those times where the pros heavily outweigh the cons. Criminals and people who should not be on the road can be way more easily tracked with license plates. I can't really think of a situation where I would care that someone is passively recording my plate location as I drive by?
Also what if you are illegally parked somewhere. How is an officer supposed to issue you a ticket without your plates?
This same style of argument when applied to freedom of speech leads to the appropriately criticized "free speech zones". I have a right to travel and a right to privacy. Saying that I can only use one of these rights at a time is absurd. My opinion on this specific instance might change if the US invested as much into public transportation as it does into roadways, but that is not the case.
Driving to a union meeting? Driving to an abortion clinic? Driving to a church of a different religion/denomination than your family? Driving away from an abusive partner?
This is actually a serious debate in the political philosophy community, notably with georgists.
Travel implies that you are traversing some real property on land, sea or air. So the ownership (or lack of ownership) of the property that you're traversing would in theory dictate whether you could cross it and how.
Different countries have different laws in this regard, including "easement" requirements, but it's not universal, hence national borders.
So while it seems like you have the "right," it's not so simple legally or philosophically to determine who is guaranteeing or violating that right at any given moment.
You are so fixated on the car in this mindeset.
Do you have the right to fly an airplane and have privacy at the same time? If you don't have it in the air, why do you think you should have it on the roads?
Good point with the car fixation. We're very close to easy personalized air travel (eg: the English Channel hoverboard crossing of earlier this summer). License plates are made for objects with a clear front and back, traveling mostly forwards and backwards. How will we identify personal carrier drones? Maybe the answer to this question will move us out of the box and provide a more robust solution to this general license plate issue, and then we can apply that to cars.
"Pros outweighing the cons" is often a solid indicator of a real Constitutional challenge, as most Constitutional protections are around things that the founders decided had pros that outweighed their cons so substantially that they wrote them into the founding document of the nation.
Your comment about illegal parking is a pretty good one for highlighting the consequences though - issuing tickets would become functionally impossible, which would likely result in more booting (which is effective at ensuring compliance by the owner, but wildly counterproductive to the goals of parking restrictions) or towing (which has plenty of its own issues).
I've only started thinking about this today, so I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm more interested in whether or not this sort of thing has every been seriously covered in court given its overlap with other privacy arguments.
The officer can read the less visible VIN. But more importantly, cops aren't everywhere, many laws are structured with this fact in mind. Having a visible license plate enables the bystander or witness of a crime to safely report it so that the accused can be located and investigated/cited/apprehended later by professionals.
I very much understand that this is the "value" of license plates. However, the same argument could be made for requiring everyone to display their social security number, which would pretty obviously not make through a court challenge. As I mentioned elsewhere, having just started thinking about this, I don't have a strong opinion yet, but this is a great example of an argument that strongly overlaps with those made in other privacy cases.
I really think that's a stretch. I get the similarity, however driving in a vehicle is not the same as walking down the street.
You need to be registered to have a vehicle, you need to have a drivers license, you need to have insurance. There is nothing you need while walking down the street, except clothes in most places. So there is no good argument for forcing identification.
As I took one step further for someone else, is the next argument going to be you don't have to publicly identify your aircraft when flying? Are we going to argue it removes privacy that an aircraft must identify itself with the FAA?
I know you are just starting to toy with this argument. But I think it's easy enough to find so many differences between a person walking down the street and having a vehicle which we regulate for many good reasons.
Interesting topic though, for sure.