Unbelievable. Yes, we know they do this. We had this conversation a couple months ago and it was attached to an article describing exactly what they do. They don't just put cops "in the right place at the right time", which is your favorite and flawed analogy. They tell cops to pull someone over at the right place and the right time and make up a reason to pull them over.
This should be illegal. It should be illegal even if something perfectly analogous has existed in that past. The extensiveness of a technique and the power that it allows matters.
I'm not going to go back and find this conversation because I shouldn't have to. It's not my job to follow you around and make sure you are being intellectually honest. It's pretty frustrating that someone as well-respected as you are here, and someone who is such a prolific poster, refuses to update his model of the world when new information is introduced into it. You are mind-bogglingly tenacious in trying to quell the outrage over civil liberties abuses and apparently go as far as selectively forgetting relevant information.
No, that's not your job. It's weird that you think it is.
Could you cite a link to the case you're thinking of, where evidence from SIGINT surveillance was used directly as probable cause for a search?
Also, could you yourself update your mental model of what's happening on HN? You obviously think I'm a tenacious foe of civil liberties causes. The opposite is true. I've done as much in the real world to support civil liberties causes as most anyone else on HN has. I contribute to candidates who I believe support a strong fourth amendment. I've canvassed for candidates like them. I donate to civil liberties causes.
What I have a problem with are batshit conspiracy theories, which is something HN is rife with. People should stop pretending that conspiracy theories are helpful when they're of the right valence. They aren't.
If you've actually followed me around HN, you know that I'm not at all unwilling to acknowledge when I'm wrong, as a cursory look at HNSearch will show. So, instead of yelling at me, why not show where I'm wrong?
Personal anecdote: riding as passenger in friend's vehicle, LEO pulls over, friend says 'oh, not again.' LEO advises '... license plate lamp out ...' Friend says, 'no it isn't,' exits vehicle, examines lamp -- in good working order. LEO says, 'must have made a mistake'. Friend says, 'no, I have a name similar to someone with an active warrant', cop says 'uh, huh'. Runs license. Free to go.
Lawful stop? No. Remedy? No.
The core issue is that the judiciary's (and your) presumption of reliable and trustworthy law enforcement behavior is not valid. This is a LEO 'company culture' problem which has always existed (formerly a racial problem, but now everyone's problem now that we're not doing that any more).
I'm not sure what the answer is, other than people need to learn what has happened in the ghetto for the last 200 years, then accept that they're next.
I'm confused about the exact details here -- does he believe there is an auto plate tracker which shows the name the vehicle is registered to (him) which gets a false-positive on a secondary search for name? It would seem more reasonable to have a list of suspects/warrants, and then a list of their own vehicles, and just pop it up then. You'd also want to find cars the suspect was known to drive, since it's pretty common for a "criminal" to register his property in someone else's name to protect from seizure.
I think it would be more plausible that he was profiled for race/location/type of vehicle/etc., rather than his name, but maybe there are more specifics?
Yes, I just don't see how an automated license plate scanner would get confused by a similar name -- I assume those have access to DMV database, so it would pull up 5DES800 and see it's registered to Marcus Walters of 1 Crypto Way who has 5 open warrants for overthrowing the state; it wouldn't say "this is a car registered to Marcus Walter" which the officer would then confuse with the open warrant for Marcus WalterS.
I suppose it's possible the ALPS could be configured to just ID every single car, and the officer had in his mind (or using another system) the name of a specific suspect who he matched (erroneously) to the ALPS results of the victim here.
I don't think there are documented cases of the SOD information being used as probable cause (in the sense that it was presented in court as justification for a search). Much of the point of the program is to avoid that happening.
It seems likely there are cases of the SOD information being used to target people for abusive traffic stops (the agent in the Reuters article says And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it).
This should be illegal. It should be illegal even if something perfectly analogous has existed in that past. The extensiveness of a technique and the power that it allows matters.
I'm not going to go back and find this conversation because I shouldn't have to. It's not my job to follow you around and make sure you are being intellectually honest. It's pretty frustrating that someone as well-respected as you are here, and someone who is such a prolific poster, refuses to update his model of the world when new information is introduced into it. You are mind-bogglingly tenacious in trying to quell the outrage over civil liberties abuses and apparently go as far as selectively forgetting relevant information.