frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

Closest Harmonic Number to an Integer

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2025/11/19/closest-harmonic-number-to-an-integer/
1•ibobev•19s ago•0 comments

Cool Banana 2.0 (featuring the new Gemini 3 Pro Image)

https://gerry7.itch.io/cool-banana
1•jaggs•2m ago•1 comments

Cognition Improved with Some Drugs for Depression

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/cognition-improved-some-drugs-depression-2025a1000wbk
1•wjb3•2m ago•1 comments

ArkA – A minimal open video protocol (first MVP demo)

https://baconpantsuppercut.github.io/arkA/
1•moshebenpeshe•3m ago•1 comments

Machine Intelligence Exposed the AI Industry's Circular Financing Scheme

https://substack.com/inbox/post/179453867
1•pimeys•3m ago•0 comments

Bicyclic Matrix-Matrix Multiplication in Homomorphic Encryption

https://www.jeremykun.com/2025/11/17/bicyclic-matrix-matrix-multiplication-in-fully-homomorphic-e...
1•ibobev•3m ago•0 comments

Show HN: Docuglean – Extract Structured Data from PDFs/Images Using AI

https://github.com/cernis-intelligence/docuglean-ocr
1•victorevogor•4m ago•0 comments

Big Tech's Creative Financing Is Fooling No One

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-11-20/ai-spending-big-tech-s-creative-financing-i...
1•zerosizedweasle•6m ago•1 comments

Almost that time of the year for a recap

https://chatrecap.co
1•celltalk•8m ago•1 comments

New banking records prove Deel paid thief who stole trade secrets from Rippling

https://www.rippling.com/blog/new-banking-records-prove-deel-paid-thief-who-stole-trade-secrets-f...
3•babelfish•8m ago•0 comments

Where "Simulation" Came From

https://decomposition.al/blog/2025/11/20/where-simulation-came-from/
1•speckx•11m ago•0 comments

New Glenn Update – Blue Origin

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-glenn-upgraded-engines-subcooled-components-drive-enhanced-pe...
7•rbanffy•12m ago•0 comments

Mark Zuckerberg's hate-speech gamble fuels Gen Z radicalization on Instagram

https://fortune.com/2025/11/20/gen-z-instagram-reels-millions-views-hitler-holocaust-denial-influ...
3•zzzeek•13m ago•1 comments

Canonical Gets Flutter Up and Running on RISC-V for Ubuntu

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Canonical-Flutter-On-RISC-V
1•mikece•14m ago•0 comments

N/A

https://baconpantsuppercut.github.io/arkA/client-mvp/
1•moshebenpeshe•16m ago•0 comments

AI artwork in London axed after being misinterpreted

https://www.londoncentric.media/p/ai-artwork-london-kingston-upon-thames-axed
3•rbanffy•21m ago•1 comments

JetBrain's Developer Productivity AI Arena Is a Game Changer

https://www.i-programmer.info/news/90-tools/18475-jetbrains-developer-productivity-ai-arena-is-a-...
1•aquastorm•25m ago•0 comments

Breathing new life into tuberculosis treatment with inhalable nanomedicine

https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/research-news/2025/2025-10/breathing-new-life-into-tb-tre...
2•PaulHoule•26m ago•0 comments

U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses as hate symbols

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/20/coast-guard-swastika-noose/
24•mrtesthah•27m ago•5 comments

Run Docker containers natively in Proxmox 9.1 (OCI images)

https://raymii.org/s/tutorials/Finally_run_Docker_containers_natively_in_Proxmox_9.1.html
13•jandeboevrie•28m ago•3 comments

Spain's general attorney convicted in controversial leak case

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly4ypj92j9o
1•jiwidi•28m ago•0 comments

RNE announces switch-off of its medium wave broadcasts

https://www.worlddab.org/news/16943/rne-announces-switch-off-of-its-medium-wave-broadcasts
2•austinallegro•29m ago•0 comments

NASA astronaut estranged wife pleads guilty to alleged crime committed in space

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nasa-astronauts-estranged-wife-pleads-guilty-falsely-alleging-first-cr...
2•iamtech•30m ago•0 comments

Strands Agents SOPs

https://pypi.org/project/strands-agents-sops/
1•bbgnyc•30m ago•0 comments

Watch Wikipedia article come to life by veteran editor on iPhone [video]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MIUNa0hKElg
1•fcpguru•31m ago•0 comments

Show HN: Case Study on Software Requirements Specification

1•ZoePsomi•31m ago•0 comments

Got a full Windows XP desktop working inside Termux on Android

https://old.reddit.com/r/termux/comments/1p1yb9m/got_a_full_windows_xp_desktop_working_inside/
3•sipofwater•32m ago•2 comments

Nuremberg trial records made available online after painstaking 25-year project

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/20/digitised-official-records-of-nuremberg-trials-made...
3•wslh•32m ago•0 comments

NTSB Preliminary Ups Flight 2976 Crash During Takeoff

https://www.ntsb.gov:443/investigations/Pages/DCA26MA024.aspx
2•kens•35m ago•1 comments

Agentic systems redraw the Pareto frontier on ARC-AGI

https://poetiq.ai/posts/arcagi_announcement/
1•gkapur•36m ago•0 comments
Open in hackernews

CBP is monitoring US drivers and detaining those with suspicious travel patterns

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-patrol-surveillance-drivers-ice-trump-9f5d05469ce8c629d6fecf32d32098cd
352•jjwiseman•1h ago

Comments

themafia•1h ago
Drive a rental car with California plates through Arizona on eastward and you're likely to find this out first hand.

They'll of course pretend that they just saw you commit a minor infraction and that's why you were pulled over.

mothballed•1h ago
When i was building a house next to the border, I drove from the border north every week, but was astonishingly never flagged at the internal checkpoints (ive been brutalized by cbp at the actual border before under false drug smuggling accusations). I also have a lot of foreign, brown 'illegal' looking family (us citizens) whom I'd drive up/down the border regularly through CBP checkpoints as they helped us build.

The fact i was never stopped makes me even more terrified of a panopticon. Is their surveillance that bad -- or that good?

ahmeneeroe-v2•1h ago
>the fact i was never stopped makes me even more terrified of a panopticon. Is their surveillance that bad -- or that good?

"I'm terrified that this panopticon so bad that it doesn't see anything"

cestith•37m ago
If it’s so good that it sees everything, and they just haven’t seen anything of interest enough to stop you yet isn’t that scary?
ahmeneeroe-v2•19m ago
what
stevenjgarner•1h ago
Drove a new Hyundai with dealer plates from AZ to Minnesota and got pulled over by Bethany, MO city police on I-35 in northern MO with no probable cause other than window tint being too dark. They tore the car apart certain that I was muling drugs (removed seats, body panels, etc). Took 6 hours. Never found anything and left me with "we know you have committed a crime, we just cannot find it, but you will get caught". I had to put the car back together myself in the dark.

Retired age men driving dealer plate cars eastbound onto I-80 in Nebraska out of Colorado from I-76 get stopped ALL THE TIME as potential drug mules.

dylan604•1h ago
I'm confused. Are you saying they disassembled your car right there where you were pulled over? They had the tools on hand to do this? They didn't tow your car to a shop to have it searched? I've seen many many a car stop get searched by hand and/or with canine. Not once have I ever seen removal of seats/paneling/etc on the side of the road. So this is a bit much to take on first read without further questions
stevenjgarner•42m ago
Yes that is what I am saying. Most cops carry a multi tool at the minimum (with Phillips screwdriver). They also had a standard 10mm socket (carried by MANY cops and all that is required to dismantle much of any Hyundai).

Using their multi tool, they removed the fender liners (wheel well liners) from all 4 wheels, the trunk side trim (luggage compartment side trim) from both sides - all of which just has plastic push-pin scrivets (retainer clips). They broke 5 of them.

They folded down my back seats (after removing all my personal items out to the shoulder in the rain), then unbolted and removed the back seat.

I do a LOT of interstate driving, and it is not at all uncommon to see this happen.

This is not the only time I have been in situations where authority has been exceeded. My attitude is to generally be cooperative (without giving consent) as my experience has taught me that is the most painless way to go.

dylan604•37m ago
Did you ever ask for a supervisor/sergeant to be called? If they are in on it to then you're no worse off, but if they can come out and rein in an out of control patrol then so much the better.
stevenjgarner•32m ago
One of them WAS a sergeant. My hope was that a State Trooper would stop and reign things in a bit. Just lots of semis thundering by. Otherwise, it can get pretty quiet on rural interstates at night.
FuriouslyAdrift•27m ago
Driving on I-70 or I-80/81 through Ohio definitely gets you noticed. There's a lot of meth in Ohio...
ssl-3•16m ago
Just adding some perspective from someone who has been inside the trunk of a lot of cop cars over the years[1]:

A good many cops (maybe not >50%, but a very significant percentage) carry a pretty decent ad-hoc toolkit in their vehicles. There's often a toolbox with screwdrivers, socketry, pliers, some wrenches, maybe a hammer and/or other basic handtools.

It's pretty common for folks who know how to use tools to keep some on-hand, and cops are not an exception.

[1]: Yeah, so... I should probably explain that part. Some of my work involves 2-way radios, and some of that 2-way radio business has lead to me putting radios and stuff into things like cop cars. I've emptied out hundreds of cop cars to get access to what I need, and have certainly climbed into the trunk of dozens of them to be where I need to be. (Someone has to do it, and sometimes that person is me.)

cestith•40m ago
This is regular, typical behavior for some departments.
LocalH•59m ago
The cruelty is the point
mzs•25m ago
This happened to me, in East Germany. I'm sorry it happens now in the Land of the Free.
kylehotchkiss•16m ago
The more this flyover-state mentality policing continues (obvious civil asset forfeiture fishing - dealers might be carrying cash from a previous sale, etc), the less people are going to drive through them, further depriving these states of a revenue source. Of course, this mentality could be voted out by the residents of these states, but I'm not optimistic.
pureagave•1h ago
Every rental car I've rented in California seems to have Florida plates and every U-haul I've rented in the country has Arizona plates. I don't know that the issuing state matters. The Article content suggests the main issue is taking multiple short trips to the boarder not driving across a state.
hypeatei•1h ago
The idea of a federal agent stopping you for a traffic infraction is insane on its face. That'd be very rare, if not unheard of, in normal times no? How would they charge you? Are there federal laws on the books for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt?
themafia•1h ago
Look into "dual sworn" officers. Although I've seen a few investigations which show that the federal officers will just send a text message, on a private phone, to uniformed officers when they want them to "check something out."
mothballed•57m ago
Even worse feds will use local cops as fodder to pull over actual murderous criminals on traffic infractions, not knowing what they are dealing with. They then let the local cops take the risk and come by with their meal team 6 squad afterwards.

https://youtu.be/rH6bsr61vrw

outside1234•23m ago
This makes me want to do this just to jam up the system
duxup•1h ago
This dragnet style data monitoring is illegal when it comes to phones, it probably should be illegal when it comes to cameras too.
kgwxd•1h ago
We already know they're doing it with phones too, laws don't apply to them.
bigyabai•24m ago
Nonsense, I have it on good authority that Privacy Is A Human Right or somesuch.
stevenjgarner•1h ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45945960
Schiendelman•1h ago
So how do we do that? Is some organization working on it with a plausible theory of change?
duxup•1h ago
The phone rulings came from court cases. So sadly it has to reach a case, an in the meantime other folks are hurt with no recourse.
mothballed•1h ago
License plates aren't compatible with the 4th amendment, and this only becomes more obvious with time.
Terr_•1h ago
Part of the problem is that you're simply not allowed to sue the people who are misusing the technology to violate the level of privacy everyone actually does expect in public.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/you-should-have-right-...

giantg2•1h ago
No, the license plates are not the problem. It's the scanning/recording of them that is.

License plates provide basically the same info as the title to the car or your house. They only supply addition information, such as location when they are recorded somewhere. With things like facial recognition, you don't need the plates to track movement (although it is easier).

The real problem is public surveillance identifying/tracking individuals.

walletdrainer•1h ago
The idea of having titles for cars seems fundamentally weird too. We manage fine in most of the rest of the world without any special government paperwork establishing the owner of a vehicle.
giantg2•1h ago
It's mostly redundant as the registration schemes in most other countries do the same thing.
ruined•1h ago
it seems more feasible to get rid of the license plates than to control public or private imaging and analytics of the license plates.
giantg2•1h ago
It does seem easier, but very low vlaue. If we let the recoding continue we will still have facial recognition, gait recognition, OnStar tracking, etc.
pavel_lishin•1h ago
I want to hear out your point more, but by that logic, neither is walking around without a mask, or using a transit pass, or paying for things with a credit card.
mothballed•1h ago
LP are compelled search of your papers by police without RAS nor PC.
malcolmgreaves•1h ago
You don't own a license plate. It's the state's property.
mothballed•1h ago
Not in my state.
pavel_lishin•32m ago
A license plate seems as much of a "paper" as the house numbers on my mailbox.
bitexploder•1h ago
People may not understand how deep this goes. With municipalities eagerly allowing companies like Flock to hoover up license plates and centrally aggregate this data there is a very strong argument this is true and amounts to 4A violations when considered in total.

Add that many states have laws that are /more/ punishing if you intentionally obscure your plate than simply not having one, what other conclusion can be drawn? The state’s arguments are thin. “Oh we need it to find criminals / vehicles of interest” oh sure, so you get to suck up all our data to protect a few toll roads and track a few supposed criminals. The balance of benefit to society is dubious at best IMO.

themafia•1h ago
Steve Jobs famously used to get a new car every 6 months, because in California, you don't have to put plates on it for that amount of time. So he could essentially permanently drive around without an attached license plate.

I think about this from time to time.

fragmede•1h ago
That's illegal now, not that it affects him any more.
seanw444•59m ago
Well that's just based.
dylan604•55m ago
Paper plates are still required. The number on it may not be as large as the actual plate, but there is definitely a unique number on it that is absolutely registered to owner of the car.

This sounds a lot like urban legend / internet lore

ericbarrett•52m ago
California did not require numbered paper plates when Jobs did this. Car dealers would put paper plates advertising themselves on the car, but you could remove them. Your temporary registration was taped on the inside of the front windshield.

I personally saw his SL500 with dealer plates a couple of times while visiting the Apple campus as a vendor. He'd park in the handicap spot too.

LgWoodenBadger•1h ago
Suspicious behavior is not a crime, and law enforcement is required to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to detain people.
lawlessone•1h ago
>and law enforcement is required to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to detain people.

They can just say you're not a citizen.

engeljohnb•1h ago
It's the oldest trick in the fascist book. You can't be a tyrant when the people are used to the idea that citizens have inalienable rights, so you slowly chip away at who counts as a "citizen."
randallsquared•58m ago
The legal system has been chipping away at the rights themselves (and otherwise expanding governmental power) for hundreds of years, predating fascism (and communism, too). This is just the tactic of the moment.
anonym29•1h ago
Unfortunately, law enforcement often isn't subject to US law in practice, only in theory. And even on those few occasions where they are held to account for crimes against the public, the settlement is paid out with the public's own money rather than the officer's.
awesome_dude•1h ago
Devil's advocate: If the officer is acting within the policy/training they are given by their employer (and that includes not being told to not do something) then it's the employer's fault, and we (the taxpayer/ultimate employer) are liable for that.
donkyrf•1h ago
The devil doesn't need an advocate.

And you are misrepresenting the situation of what is paid out.

awesome_dude•53m ago
Nope.

As proved by the fact that you have no evidence.

LocalH•1h ago
"I was just following orders"
awesome_dude•54m ago
You are bound to obey the legal orders/directions of your employer.

If you deem them to be illegal - the onus is on you to prove that, in a court of law, whilst you are unemployed because the employer sacked you for disobeying their instructions/orders

It's all cool to be on the internet saying things like that, but when it comes to reality, I DOUBT you would do anything other than acquiesce.

cestith•42m ago
Officers are licensed professionals. Doctors carry insurance. Engineers carry insurance. Teachers carry legal insurance, too. Sometimes the employer is also financially liable for damages, but not solely. Yet the police tend to let a city or county pay the bill instead of the officer, the department, or the union even when the officer is well outside of training and policy.
awesome_dude•35m ago
"Sometimes"

"Tend to"

Do you have any citeable evidence of this being an actual thing, or is it just vibes?

sleepybrett•8m ago
Almost every small business carries insurance.
iso1631•1h ago
If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear

(/s incase it isn't obvious)

stevenjgarner•1h ago
Please watch "Don't Talk to the Police" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36371237)
toomanyrichies•1h ago
> incase it isn’t obvious

You’re right that it should be. And in a sane world it would be. Yet here we are anyway.

ortusdux•1h ago
It's borderline impossible to drive from one location to another and not break a law. Some argue that this is by design.
m00x•27m ago
How? I've never been arrested in my life because I follow laws, so I'm unfamiliar how you can just accidentally break a law. Is this an American thing?
duxup•1h ago
"Computer said you did something wrong, explain yourself."
codegeek•1h ago
Guilty until proven innocent.
jabroni_salad•1h ago
I commute to a different state for work and when one of them legalized weed I once got pulled over and dog-searched for "driving exactly the speed limit." When they want to go fishing there is absolutely nothing that will stop them.
Schiendelman•1h ago
But once in court, you would probably get that thrown out. The key problem is that we haven't instituted consequences for that sort of police behavior.
rileymat2•1h ago
If you go to court, pay a lawyer for the hours for it, instead of pleading down. In many cases you have already lost just based on the accusation.
pixelatedindex•1h ago
That’s if you get to go to court. ICE makes mistakes and I doubt any of their detainees get due process.
jabroni_salad•1h ago
They did not ticket me so there is no day in court. Chatting you up, seeing everything visible through the windows, leaning in to smell your car, running your license for warrants are all "free" interactions with no oversight.

The fun doesnt stop there, check out 'civil asset forfeiture' when you have a chance.

Also, if you read TFA, it seemed like the owner of a truck and trailer had to spend $20k getting his stuff out of impound when his employee was wrongly arrested. Seems like an innocent judgement isnt everything we think it is.

LordGrey•53m ago
I had an acquaintance who was a county constable. He once told me, "Let me watch you drive down the road, any road, for 30 seconds and I will be able to find a valid reason to pull you over." He implied that some part of their training was focused on exactly that.

One data point, and a highly regional one at that, I know.

halapro•42m ago
Outdated information. With the new 2.0 update, anyone with a car can pull you over for whatever reason.
no_input•33m ago
The law is not on the citizens' side and never has been. Driving over the limit (even the smallest increment) is technically illegal. Driving under can be considered suspicious and warrant further surveillance (or more likely incite road rage from other drivers) in which you will likely make a mistake. Nobody follows every traffic law perfectly and in all likelyhood cannot. Every cop I have ever known has admitted to this fact and there are even more examples of former(or current) law enforcement officers going on record saying the same thing.
stevenwoo•25m ago
Law enforcement has enormous discretion for probable cause and can give straight up contradictory reasons for different cases, it is what officers are taught to do (i.e. something like driving too fast, driving too slow, driving too rigidly at the speed limit). This allows individual bias to overwhelm any attempt at equal enforcement. It's pretty well documented in both The New Jim Crow and Usual Cruelty, the Supreme Court has made it difficult to gather data in the last couple decades.
sleepybrett•9m ago
Any given american citizen is certainly breaking, at minimum, dozens of laws even while asleep in their own bed. If they want to pick you up and they are diligent enough they certainly can. They might be laughed out of court, but they also might not be.
rileymat2•1h ago
From the sound of the article, they flag the person for local police that then can almost always find a reason to pull someone over as a pretext.
frank_nitti•1h ago
Police that I’ve spoken to will readily confirm this. They consider profiling, not necessarily racial, an important part of patrolling. If they decide you look the part, they will find a way within several minutes/miles of watching.
stevenjgarner•1h ago
Not true. Section 215 of Patriot Act expanded surveillance powers, information-sharing, and intelligence authorities, allowing the FBI to obtain “business records” relevant to counterterrorism, no probable cause required. This does not specifically authorize detention, but show me the "business records" of any enterprise that would not raise questions requiring 48-hour hold.
avidiax•1h ago
> law enforcement is required to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to detain people.

In theory, yes.

In practice, yes, with many caveats.

LE doesn't have to articulate that reasonable suspicion at the time of the detention. They can come up with that suspicion years later when it comes to deciding in court whether the evidence from that traffic stop can be suppressed. This is assuming that the warrantless search even found anything, the suspect didn't accept a plea deal in lieu of going to trial, and the charges weren't dropped just before trial.

A working system for this sort of thing would be more like:

* The officer needs to record that reasonable suspicion at the time of the detention.

* All of these reasonable suspicion detentions are recorded, along with outcomes. This becomes evidence for reasonability presented in court. An officer with a low hit rate suggests that the suspicion in generally unreasonable, and they are just fishing.

* A 20 minute timer is started at the start of a traffic stop. If the officer can't articulate the reasonable suspicion at the 20 minute mark, detention is considered plainly illegal, and qualified immunity does not apply. This prevents keeping people on the roadside for a hour waiting for the dog to show up.

* Similarly, the hit rate of the police dogs needs to be recorded, and low hit rate should make any evidence from them inadmissible.

For any of this to happen, we would need to start giving standing to supposedly "unharmed" suspects that just had their vehicle torn apart and hours of their lives wasted without charge. Currently, the courts seem to think that a little wait at a traffic stop and an fruitless illegal search that is never seen in the courtroom is no damage at all.

codegeek•1h ago
Assuming they do the questioning in good faith. When they are ordered to "find something", you are already at a disadvantage as a regular person. I mostly have good interactions when stopped but had my share of bad faith actors and it will be a really bad day if you happen to come across those especially in current climate.
dylan604•1h ago
While suspicious behavior is not a crime, it is certainly going to be used as probable cause. How would you think it to be any other way? See something, say something is nothing but using suspicious behavior
andy99•1h ago
The problem with lots of laws, often poorly thought out or framed, is that anyone can be breaking them any time, allowing law enforcement to target people or groups they don’t like with impunity. Drug laws are an obvious one, but so are traffic laws (with ever more rules about distracted driving etc, “drunk” driving ), things like loitering, all the stupid anti-free speech laws in places like the uk.

People get whipped up to support laws but don’t see that more is just worse, especially the petty ones, even if they notionally correct for some bad behaviour, because they allow selective enforcement.

franciscator•1h ago
Use AI to keep your driving pattern non suspicious ...
pavel_lishin•1h ago
How, exactly, do you propose to do that?
lo_zamoyski•1h ago
Ask the AI. It will tell you. :)
sahaj•1h ago
But the criminals and illegals and the worst of the worst and the drugs. Think of the children that are being fed illegal drugs thru tubes put in by the trans-national trans gangs.

/s

bomewish•1h ago
Wouldn’t it be trivial for serious criminals - like cartels etc - to just use different vehicles?
Finnucane•1h ago
Sure, but policies that just generally terrorize people aren't primarily about actually catching criminals.
nabla9•1h ago
65% of the US population, 200 million Americans, live within the 100-Mile "Constitution-Free Zone".

Supreme Court has established that some established constitutional provisions do not apply at the U.S. border, and protections against governmental privacy incursions are significantly reduced.

The border search exception applies within 100 miles (160 km) of the border of the United States, including borders with Mexico and Canada but also coastlines.

1121redblackgo•1h ago
What is the rationale for 100 miles? Curious if anyone knows, or if its an arbitrary number a lawmaker decided?
nabla9•1h ago
The 1946 statute gave CBP the authority to stop and search all vehicles within a “reasonable distance”. CBP defined the reasonable to be 100 miles and it stuck. It's just federal regulation interpreting the law and courts have blessed it.
dboreham•59m ago
Supreme Court rulings it seems. This is the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357#

But it only says "any reasonable distance". SCOTUS appears to have come up with the 100 mile limit in various cases over time.

tptacek•1h ago
This is mostly a canard, kept alive by fundraising pages at ACLU, but contradicted directly by current pages on the ACLU's site. It feels useful on a message board to call out things like this, but it actually hurts people in the US, who deserve to know that they do not surrender their 4th Amendment rights simply by dint of living within 100 miles of Lake Erie.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041697

(There's a really good Penn State law review article on that thread).

nabla9•1h ago
> (really good Penn State law review article on that thread)

Yes, and what it says is this:

>The Supreme Court has decided that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border, holding that the government’s interest in monitoring and controlling entrants outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. Thus, routine searches without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion are considered inherently reasonable and automatically justified in that particular context.32 Fourth Amendment rights are therefore significantly circumscribed at the border, and CBP is given an expansive authority to randomly—and without suspicion—search, seize, and detain individuals and property at border crossings that law enforcement officers would not have in other circumstances.

The constitution free, means that constitutional rights are reduced within the area.

tptacek•53m ago
The whole article is about what at the border actually means.
vel0city•1h ago
In the end people are being swept upt under what seems to be an obviously unconstitutional thing and yet the courts continue to shrug.

I agree with the Penn State Law Review analysis in your link. Sadly that's not the reality of the world we live in. You're burying your head in the sand pointing to a document that suggest how things should be compared to what has actually been happening. In the end, people are being stopped and nothing is being done about it. Some paper put out by a law review isn't ending the persucation that is happening no matter how hard you ignore it.

Words on some paper mean nothing compared to the actual actions of man.

djoldman•53m ago
Folks may be talking past each other on the "100 mile" issue.

The dissonance arises from these contradictions:

1. Federal regulations specifically state "100 air miles" with respect to the US Border patrol: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/part-287/section-287.1#...

2. The US Border Patrol has lost court cases for things they have done within those 100 miles, essentially saying they shouldn't have done those things.

An informal interpretation of this is that the US Federal Government and BP generally view the powers of the BP as more expansive than the judicial branch, possibly including the legislative.

wbxp99•1h ago
>While the U.S. Border Patrol primarily operates within 100 miles of the border, it is legally allowed “to operate anywhere in the United States,” the agency added.
tptacek•1h ago
The Border Patrol probably is allowed to operate anywhere within the United States, but being in the Border Patrol doesn't (at least statutorily) give them any magic powers; in particular, you don't get "border search authority" by being a part of CBP, but rather by being any law enforcement officer confronting someone who you reasonably believe crossed the border recently.
codethief•1h ago
…and including international airports (and thus all major cities) if I'm informed correctly.
jl6•43m ago
“Constitution-Free Zone”

Now there’s a trumped-up charge.

np-•15m ago
Border Patrol is doing an operation in Charlotte, NC right now. That is well over 100 miles from any border or coast. So 100 miles itself is fiction, they can just do whatever they want. Who’s gonna stop them?
closeparen•11m ago
International airports count.
wslh•1h ago
In Saudi Arabia Uber reports all trips to the kingdom [1].

[1] https://blog.careem.com/posts/local-regulatory-data-sharing-...

ericbarrett•1h ago
One of the most striking things about this article were the photos of the disguised cameras, especially the ones dressed up as traffic cones and electrical boxes.
dylan604•1h ago
How is that striking? We've had nanny cams with cameras hidden in teddy bears and other items for a really long time now. That's like saying you're shocked cops go undercover and do not ID themselves as cops.
hypeatei•1h ago
It's been fascinating watching the party of "small government" turn into one that supports ever expanding powers of a three letter agency whose job is supposed to be patrolling the border. It's like a new 9/11 Patriot act moment, except it's only one side supporting it this time.
arealaccount•1h ago
I don't know what you mean by "turn into" it's always been that way
hypeatei•1h ago
"turn into" is referring to the mask off nature of it all. Before, they might be a little embarrassed or pretend they still stand for those principles. But all I've seen are conservatives explaining why it might be technically allowed or straight up cheering it on.
codegeek•1h ago
There is nothing small Govt anymore. Both parties are the same when it comes to extending Govt's power (just for different reasons). It is just a talking point now.
smallmancontrov•44m ago
State's Rights (to own slaves) vs No State Rights (to shelter slaves) is probably the most infamous example, and it's from a while ago.
pnw•1h ago
None of this is new. The article states that CBP got authorization to track license plates in 2017 and concerns about law enforcement use of ALPR date back to at least 2010. The ACLU sued the LAPD in 2013 on ALPR.
spicyusername•59m ago
I mean, the last 20 years is only ~8% of the history of the U.S., so all things considered those changes are pretty "new".
pnw•56m ago
Sure, but the OP was specifically referring to party politics and this is a bipartisan issue.
peterashford•52m ago
"detaining those with suspicious travel patterns" is new
nawgz•15m ago
> this is a bipartisan issue

Where the instance upthread and your instance both occurred under the same president? lol

dragonwriter•53m ago
The particular manner in which it is being used can be different even if the fact that is being used by CBP is not.
ActorNightly•42m ago
>CBP got authorization to track license plates in 2017

who was president in 2017?

root_axis•10m ago
The part that's new is people being detained for "suspicious" traffic patterns.
vlovich123•1h ago
The party of small government is a slogan. It’s the same party that expanded domestic FBI surveillance, expanded intelligence agencies and lots of other things. It’s also the party that is intimately interested in what private citizens do in their bedroom (sodomy and condom laws) and what medical decisions doctors and patients can undertake.
csours•1h ago
I really wish we had a (lower case) republican or conservative party in the US.

I hope we survive this fear driven over-stimulated era of politics.

riffic•53m ago
that party would be a pressure-valve mechanism and I would rather prefer the boiler to explode and to start anew.
xenophonf•47m ago
That's easy to say when you aren't the one under pressure.
more_corn•41m ago
Or one of the 200M people in the blast radius.
BetaDeltaAlpha•45m ago
That sounds like a recipe for chaos and famine akin to Russia in the early-mid 90's
petsfed•33m ago
Or worse still, Russia in the early-mid 1920s.

The Reds very nearly lost the civil war to the Whites, not because of any battlefield victory, or even a concerted propaganda effort. Instead, it was because for a lot of people, they'd take going back to the old rotten monarchist system that got them into this mess, if meant they could just stop starving to death while party operatives came and took all their food away.

dralley•42m ago
Accelerationism never works. There's a long, long list of complete and utter disasters and tremendous suffering inflicted by this moronic logic. Things get better by being made better, not by being made worse.
bluescrn•41m ago
People fantasize about revolution, but the reality would mostly be huge amounts of suffering and death.

And there's near-zero chance that the outcome would be the 'high-tech fully-automated luxury communism' that people dream of. There's many much-more-likely outcome that are worse than what exists now.

creata•30m ago
> the reality would mostly be huge amounts of suffering and death.

I think many of the people fantasizing about revolution are aware.

ActorNightly•15m ago
>I would rather prefer the boiler to explode

Just to be clear, you really would prefer to live in crumbling infrastructure, with plenty of violence, martial law, and constant worry of whether you are going to get shot or not trying to get basic supplies?

Because boiler exploding isn't romantic or cool like you think it is. Imagine the worst possible riot, except country wide.

hamdingers•40m ago
We have a lower case conservative, pro-status-quo party. The Democrats.

Even now all they can talk about is returning to normal (where normal describes the conditions that led to the current state).

lotsofpulp•31m ago
They talk about increasing minimum salaries for exempt workers, paid sick and family leave, infrastructure funding, expanding access to healthcare, etc. How is that lower case conservative, or pro status quo?
ceejayoz•29m ago
Those are pretty standard policies of center-right / conservative parties in Europe.

(Plus the fact that Dems talk about some of these doesn't mean they think they're going to happen.)

lotsofpulp•29m ago
Seems irrelevant to a discussion comparing US parties.

>Plus the fact that Dems talk about some of these doesn't mean they think they're going to happen

They literally got ACA passed by a hair, and were just shy of 2 Senate votes needed to enact all those policies I discussed in Biden's original BBB.

ceejayoz•27m ago
We're talking about a need for a party that no longer exists in the US. Why would we not look to similar examples out there in actual practice?
lobf•17m ago
Can you name an example?
ceejayoz•10m ago
Sure; the UK's Tories.
almosthere•14m ago
That's definitely left wing in the United States.
ceejayoz•7m ago
There's a big difference between "actually left wing" and "leftwards of 50% of a particular population".

The US has very little actual big-L Left (ahem) left in it.

hamdingers•25m ago
They notably do not talk about modifying the systems of governance that have prevented us from accomplishing those goals, which they have been "talking about" nearly the entire 40 years I've been alive. If I were to ignore their talk and judge purely based on action, it certainly seems like Democrats effect less change than Republicans.

(to be clear about where I stand, when given a choice between a conservative party and a regressive party, I have always begrudgingly chosen the conservatives)

jmye•18m ago
They directly increased access to healthcare and infrastructure funding in the last 15 years, and both were very obvious, big bills. Perhaps it would behoove you to actually pay attention, instead of memeing online about things you don't actually know anything about?
cogman10•19m ago
You'll notice that, except for paid sick leave, all these things are simply "keep the lights on" policies. That is conservatism.

You might be confusing conservatism with libertarianism. Up until about Reagan, all these policies were considered conservative.

Progressive policies aren't just about tweaking existing policy, it's about building new social structures. We've not seen anything really close to that in the US since roughly LBJ.

ActorNightly•18m ago
None of that is conservative or liberal or leftist its common sense that both parties should be able to agree on. There are policies that are logically the right thing to do.
jfengel•13m ago
Infrastructure funding is a pro-business position. At this point, most of the infrastructure that the Democrats are seeking funding for is maintenance, the definition of "status quo".

So is minimum wage, despite all of the screaming. Minimum wages ensure the existence of a working class. When the minimum wage drops below subsistence, there are civil disruptions that are bas for business.

When the Democrats expanded health care, they did so using a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation. It works on free-market principles, of consumers purchasing insurance from private enterprise. It is also very pro-business, creating a larger class of potential employees who can be hired without employer-sponsored benefits.

Many democrats would indeed like a government-run universal health care plan. But it's not a majority of the party, which is indeed (as the OP said) dominated by the center-right.

tshaddox•12m ago
If implemented with a modicum of competence (which is admittedly not a foregone conclusion) and over a sufficiently long period (probably at least longer than one or two 4-year terms), all of those things would almost certainly have positive effects on the economy.
drnick1•8m ago
And then there is all the woke stuff, that is unfortunately what the Democrats have been associated with lately.
riffic•58m ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilhoit_(composer)
ahmeneeroe-v2•57m ago
Very similar feeling to watching the liberal/progressive party fangirl the FBI and the intel community

edit: in reality the times have changed and so has the country and the parties. All of these pre-2008 stereotypes are stupid and not useful anymore.

kelipso•47m ago
Seriously. Where were all these people when the Democrats overreached into every aspect of our lives?

Apparently the only criticism is an accusation of hypocrisy for calling themselves the party of small government. Nothing wrong with the actions themselves apparently! Lol.

hobs•34m ago
Plenty of people complained and wanted all government overreach to stop - this is an even more dire situation, propped up by people who directly lied and said they were not interested in this (which they obviously are, and they are liars.)

Why are you complaining about people's concerns instead of the actual problems created by those in power?

ActorNightly•38m ago
The problem is that the "both sides are bad" people just uniformly vote Republican. Its the cope of understanding that your side is batshit insane, so you have to pretend that the current state of affairs doesn't actually matter, and the problem goes deeper in the goal of normalizing your party.

The truth is, the only reason not to trust the intel community is because of some fringe bullshit you heard on Joe Rogan.

jajuuka•29m ago
This is your cope to justify your side's righteousness. Many people recognize how awful both parties are and do not vote republican. Every socialist/leftist/communist falls into this category.

Wait, are you saying mass surveillance is a good thing?

ahmeneeroe-v2•20m ago
Bad reading comprehension. This isn't a "both sides are bad" thing. Both sides are different than they were from 1980 - 2008.
bluGill•17m ago
I've been voting third party for a long time. When both sides are bad (in different ways) it is the only choice left. (The third party isn't all that great either, but they are better and hopefully they send a message that people care)
sleepybrett•12m ago
Yeah the emerging 'The Bullwark' wing of the democrat party. Never trumper republicans trying as hard as they can to move the right flank of the democrat party into the bush era republican gradient so that they can pretend that they didn't lose their own party.
EnPissant•54m ago
Pretty sure Republicans always supported defending the border from drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
peterashford•52m ago
Everyone supports that?
lesuorac•50m ago
Gary, Indiana does not have a border with a foreign country so why do CBP need to monitor drivers there?
EnPissant•43m ago
It’s a logistics chokepoint for drugs coming across the southwest border into the Chicago area.
lesuorac•28m ago
> It’s a logistics chokepoint for drugs coming across the southwest border into the Chicago area

The ?

You mean to say you're supporting a checkpoint in Indiana to catch drugs that came from Mexico?

Fix the checkpoint in Texas then if it's leaking drugs to Indiana ...

EnPissant•24m ago
It's not a checkpoint, it's surveillance.

Presumably CBP is not stupid and that surveillance is providing value they can not otherwise get only in Texas.

lesuorac•13m ago
They've been at these programs for decades; if they were effective we wouldn't be in a drug epidemic At some point you have to cut your losses and accept that the only benefits were the politicians Flock donated to.

I'm not saying you have to abolish CBP. I'm saying they should be protecting the border and this ain't it.

almosthere•13m ago
Airplanes exist
bdangubic•49m ago
lol
nxor•47m ago
It's funny until you personally are affected.
ActorNightly•41m ago
Is that why Trump killed the CBP funding bill in the beginning of 2024?
EnPissant•34m ago
Trump wasn't in office at that time. He urged Republicans to not pass it for various reasons which I will not enumerate here, and CBP was funded weeks later.
hypeatei•26m ago
Ah yes, illegal immigration is like the new "terrorism"... everything must be done to stop it which includes giving CBP and ICE unchecked power.
EnPissant•19m ago
In reality, CBP and ICE have very little power.
macintux•13m ago
ICE has very little legal authority and is yet the current president’s ground troops to lock up everyone who looks foreign. I’d say they have all the power they need.
almosthere•12m ago
why not legally migrate, millions have done it in the past.
JohnTHaller•48m ago
It's the same as the Republican slogans of being the party of "fiscal responsibility" despite under-performing the Democratic party in nearly all financial metrics and constantly blowing up the deficit or being the party of "family values" while having leaders and 'respected' voices who are the complete opposite.
bbarnett•47m ago
While you're not wrong, not sure it applies here. This is an all-party thing:

Started about a decade ago to fight illegal border-related activities and the trafficking of both drugs and people, it has expanded over the past five years.

Some of the lawsuits (cited in article) to fight this, and illegal pull overs, go back years.

Really? It shows how this tech can be used in ways you don't like, when your party is no longer in power. How whatever laws you pass, surveillance you enact, powers you give, aren't just for you.

But also your political adversary.

pfannkuchen•46m ago
Small government without control of who comes in is borderline anarchy, and they never claimed to be for anarchy. Small government internally requires border controls, and if the border controls failed in the past do you expect them to just shrug? I can see disagreeing with them, easily, I just don’t see obvious hypocrisy like you are suggesting.
praptak•41m ago
Small government without [big thing I happen to like] is [bad thing] therefore it's okay to make the government big in [the aspects I like] and I don't see any hipocrisy in that.
ActorNightly•30m ago
Its been proven many times over that the majority of "illegal" immigrants, whether they come US and either overstay their allowance, or manage to skirt by on refugee status, are all predominately doing it for financial reasons, willing to work jobs for lower pay that Americans will never do, which is a huge benefit for economy.

This idea that border control somehow failed is a lie sold to you by republicans. Also Trump killed the CBP funding bill in early 2024 that would have addressed a lot of issues.

int_19h•8m ago
We're literally discussing a mass surveillance dragnet throughout the country (not just at the border) here; the kind of stuff that is normally reserved for dystopias in fiction.

To argue that it is somehow okay because it enables "small government" to exist is very much in the spirit of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength". When thugs in uniform stop and interrogate Americans on the roads because their movement patterns are "suspicious", there's nothing small about it.

CGMthrowaway•46m ago
Your comment feels unsubstantiated. What do you mean by that? Or do you just mean the current government has Republicans at the top.

Can you share data on how people of one party are supporting ALPR and the other are against it? I was looking for a public poll on this question and couldn't find one.

edit: Why am I being downvoted?

hypeatei•35m ago
Polling this year consistently shows that Republicans support all the actions being taken with respect to immigration under this admin. Sorry I don't have any links handy at the moment, but you can see it in this thread: "too many people crossed under Biden, look what you made us do!"
BeetleB•38m ago
The same party that gave us the Patriot Act?

They've not been "small government" since forever.

havblue•34m ago
While 62 house Democrats voted against it, Patriot Act had bipartisan support, which is why Obama never repealed it.
bluGill•20m ago
They have been the party of small government when the democrats are in power since forever. When they have power though...
colejhudson•31m ago
Hard to blame this squarely on the Republicans. Access to private license plate readers was granted under the Biden admin, and no doubt each of the last four administrations played some part.

To me, the CPB and ICE are looking more and more like an American Gestapo.

ActorNightly•15m ago
> Access to private license plate readers was granted under the Biden admin,

Nope.

Nice try tho. The "both sides bad" argument used to work, not anymore.

darknavi•29m ago
If you're interested in some reflection on that, What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004) by Thomas Frank explores some of this, but centered around Kansas. Pretty interesting (and frustrating) stuff.
supportengineer•27m ago
The logical conclusion of all this oppression is that everyone will just stay home, and go out no more than necessary, and spend no money that isn't absolutely necessary.

Is that a win for the oligarchs?

SilverElfin•27m ago
Well at least post 9/11 unconstitutional escalation required legislation and the creation of agencies like the DHS and TSA. Now, a political culture that is willing to break norms and abuse technicalities is silently expanding powers to the max, and that’s far more insidious. But maybe it’ll result in a strengthened democracy in the long term if new laws or amendments are passed to contain this problem.
cogman10•24m ago
> except it's only one side supporting it this time.

I wish.

Very early on in this Trump admin there was a bipartisan bill passed which greatly expanded the capabilities of ICE to deport [1]. Democrats have been well aligned with the republicans when it comes to immigration policy. You'll find few that will actually criticize the actions of ICE/DHS.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laken_Riley_Act

wffurr•22m ago
156 Democratic congressmen voted no on that bill.
cogman10•10m ago
46 voted yes. And just a few months prior democrats tried to pass this [1] [2]. Which only failed because Trump didn't want Biden to be able to show a "tough on the border" stance.

Again, you'll find few democrats that have a stance on the border that contradicts the Republican stance. There are a few, but most are just staying silent. The only reason they vote against these sorts of bills is because of pure partisanship, not out of some ideology alignment.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/436...

[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-hold-election-year-sh...

Dig1t•20m ago
We've had a generation of leaders allowing in tens of millions of people to flood into the country, the American people have voted against it every time they are given the chance and still nothing is ever done about it. The right wing voting base doesn't care about small government, we care about stopping the flood and undoing the damage that decades of these policies have caused. Look at polling data, especially among young people, border enforcement and deportations are what we want.

Look at the recent actions in Charlotte: ICE raids started and 25% of the school kids didn't show up to school. Which indicates that likely 25% of the population is illegal. It is a massive problem.

Scubabear68•20m ago
To be fair, the current Republican Party bears almost no resemblance to the "classic" Republican Party of....10 years ago.

The Newt and the Tea Party started the slide, normalizing hatred and bombast and FU-politics, and MAGA perfected it.

Whether you love it, hate it, or are indifferent, what you are dealing with now are not really Republicans. They are MAGA-folks. They should really rename themselves the Solipism Party. Nothing matters but the current state of your own head.

And yes, I know parties change and evolve with the times, but I would argue this time is very different.

masklinn•16m ago
The current Republican Party is the exact same as 10 years ago, just further along.

10 years ago was basically Trump 1. And 10 years before that was GWB starting the endless wars with an admin outright denying reality. Which Reagan also did. And of course Nixon literally broke into the opposition party’s.

sleepybrett•16m ago
.. 10 years ago. Yes it fucking does, it's just become more brazen. Those are the motherfuckers that passed the patriot act and then reupped it over and over.
tshaddox•15m ago
> To be fair, the current Republican Party bears almost no resemblance to the "classic" Republican Party of....10 years ago.

In other aspects, perhaps. But the "small government" or "pro-economy" branding of the Republican Party has been an absurdity for more like 75 years. Democratic administrations have performed better on virtually any conceivable economic metric with very few minor exceptions.

int_19h•14m ago
It's not like those Tea Party folk appeared out of the blue. They grew, but the core constituency has been pandered to by mainstream Republican leadership since at least Nixon.
concinds•11m ago
The "old" GOP also loved 3 letter agencies, unitary executive theory, and mass surveillance. They did the Patriot Act. And Scalia hated the 5th Amendment, was weird on the 4th, and dramatically increased police powers.
OhMeadhbh•8m ago
Meh. I think political parties in the states are really there just to make money. Why else would the dems keep pelting you with adds for $5? I think both parties are saying whatever they need to say to convince people to give them cash. The number of people who care about privacy seems smaller than the number of people who want to be entertained by politicians, so it's unlikely to change anytime soon.
csours•1h ago
100 Mile Border Zone - https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

Your rights are limited in interactions with CBP, or to state the inverse: CBP have claimed more powers than traditional law enforcement. This has been true for quite a while; they have at various times been more and less careful about your rights while exercising those powers. They are being less careful now.

codegeek•1h ago
"Suddenly, drivers find themselves pulled over — often for reasons cited such as speeding, failure to signal, the wrong window tint or even a dangling air freshener blocking the view. They are then aggressively questioned and searched, with no inkling that the roads they drove put them on law enforcement’s radar."

Wow, this is incredibly concerning. So they can pull me over, lie about why and then try to manufacture something ?

tclancy•1h ago
Yes, it's very important to let them lie about it or else they will have to reveal the actual giant surveillance state and all the technology behind it and that would cause us to lose WWII.

Oh wait, I think we just did, given what the Coast Guard has been up to today. https://www.juneauindependent.com/post/coast-guard-says-swas...

LocalH•57m ago
It should be illegal for law enforcement not currently participating in a proper sting operation to lie to the person they wish to investigate. But it's not.
FuriouslyAdrift•24m ago
It is in some jurisdictions. In Illinois and Oregon, laws have been passed that prohibit law enforcement officers from using deception when dealing with suspects under the age of 18. Other states, such as Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, and New York, are considering similar legislation that may extend these prohibitions to all individuals being interrogated.

https://www.timesleaderonline.com/uncategorized/2022/11/poli...

adolph•51m ago
> Wow, this is incredibly concerning. So they can pull me over, lie about why and then try to manufacture something?

  Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel, or 
  separate, evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to limit 
  disclosure as to the origins of an investigation.
  
  In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer 
  obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment's 
  protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on 
  to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under 
  the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
avidiax•48m ago
Wait until you hear about parallel construction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/03/dea-paral...

ActorNightly•6m ago
>Wow, this is incredibly concerning.

Well, maybe now you understand that when people were saying Trump is an actual fascist, it wasn't just memes.

Its only gonna get worse. At some point, CBP is gonna shoot someone, nothing is gonna happen, and that will be the turning point of when they can just arbitrarily start shooting citizens with no repercussion.

If you don't have a plan to GTFO the country by now, you are behind.

standardUser•1h ago
> often for reasons cited such as speeding, failure to signal, the wrong window tint or even a dangling air freshener

Police shouldn't be able to pull someone over for an air freshener or tinted windows. They can send a fix-it ticket without wasting the time and resources, and without causing the inconvenience or diversions in traffic. And, as a private citizen, I strongly prefer the police have the minimal necessary powers to detain me.

hugkdlief•1h ago
Hey look!

The tools of oppression that all of you AI sycophants have been helping to perfect!

hugkdlief•53m ago
Must have struck a chord saying "AI sycophants".

Sorry.

I should have said, "AI cucks".

It is much more applicable, since you all are empowering these AI megacorps to fuck everyone else while idling sitting there watching it happen.

gosub100•27m ago
they're the same ones who vote for big government, and come from blue states. so it's no surprise
mmmlinux•26m ago
I guarantee someone here worked on this system and is very proud of their work.
simonw•1h ago
License plate scanners are one of the most under-appreciated violations of personal privacy that exist today.

It's not just government use either. There are private companies that scan vast numbers of license plates (sometimes by driving around parking lots with a camera), build a database of what plate was seen where at what time, then sell access to both law enforcement and I believe private investigators.

Want to know if your spouse is having an affair? Those databases may well have the answer.

Here is a Wired story from 2014 about Vigilant Solutions, founded in 2009: https://www.wired.com/2014/05/license-plate-tracking/

I believe Vigilant only provide access to law enforcement, but Digital Recognition Network sell access to others as well: https://drndata.com/about/

Good Vice story about that: https://www.vice.com/en/article/i-tracked-someone-with-licen...

baggachipz•52m ago
Flock is extremely egregious.

https://deflock.me

vkou•46m ago
WA state has figured out a solution to the Flock problem.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules...

If they are going to be used by the government and law enforcement, they are clearly government-collected data about you - and thus, are subject to (the state equivalent of) a FOIA request.

This puts an onerous compliance requirement on Flock and the ciites that allow it to operate.

Hopefully, WA's state legislature will decline to give them any exemptions, which will kill that company's operations in the state.

---

Among other things, these cameras have been illegally used to spy on people who were getting an abortion in WA. Flock's executives (and the engineers who implemented that feature) belong in prison.

smoser•38m ago
Toyota was working on a feature for its cars that would report license plates from amber alerts to authorities. https://x.com/SteveMoser/status/1493990907661766664?s=20
ActorNightly•27m ago
I mean, its possible to subpoena cellphone records and geographically track your movement based on which cell towers you connect to.

But regardless, I always find it funny that most of the rhetoric for personal liberties revolves around being able to do illegal things.

simonw•12m ago
That is exactly my point: no subpoena or warrant is required for access to license plate scan databases.
ComplexSystems•26m ago
Don't new cars just directly record your location as you drive them?
sleepybrett•17m ago
One wonders if any given tesla is harvesting the plates the other cars it see in traffic as well.
nmeagent•16m ago
Do you think that corporate erosion of (or outright hostility to) privacy is somehow a compelling reason to deny rights to those of us who make different choices in an attempt to protect them? Just because some people decided to buy a smartphone on wheels, do I have to suffer and have my freedom of movement narrowed and protection from arbitrary inspection by government agents denied?
drnick1•12m ago
They do, but it is relatively easy to nuke the onboard modem to permanently disconnect your car. Unfortunately, most people don't know or don't care that their cars are actively spying on them.
hulitu•25m ago
> It's not just government use either. There are private companies that scan vast numbers of license plates

Welcome to capitalism. It is very hard, in EU and US, to tell where the government ends and the private companies begin.

shadowgovt•6m ago
[delayed]
lbrito•1h ago
This is what the world's most perfect democracy looks like. Peak Freedom.
nxor•39m ago
According to Pew Research, more foreigners make up the US population today than ever recorded. People here are allowed to question who is coming.
walthamstow•16m ago
What even is a foreigner in a place like the USA?
ImPleadThe5th•16m ago
I will always find it weird that people who think the fact their consciousness randomly popped into existence through pure luck in a privileged country means that they deserve it more than someone who popped into existence somewhere else.

Even that aside, how does that give them the right to infringe on the rights and privacy of citizens?

ActorNightly•5m ago
To be fair, we are also free to own guns and defend ourselves against illegal acts. Too bad people just want freedom when its easy, not when its hard
russellbeattie•59m ago
Over the past decade we've seen large numbers of Trump and MAGA supporters on HN.

Has their life improved because of ICE and CBP crackdowns? Are they happier now that all those undocumented immigrants have had their lives ruined? Are they proud of the destruction of our democratic norms and the attack on our civil liberties? Do they enjoy watching the rights of American citizens being trampled on a daily basis by a wannabe dictator?

They've been very vocal and aggressive here in the past, where are they now? Will they continue to spout misinformation, disinformation and whataboutism with unprecedented presidential power grabs, the economy faltering and the Constitution being ignored?

I wonder how they feel now that literally every fear that progressives warned about are coming true? Are they willing to accept that they are and always have been completely wrong?

Please feel free to reply and show your full throated support for this administration. I'd like to see how many HNers are so stubborn as to ignore reality.

lesuorac•35m ago
Not sure the phrasing of "undocumented immigrants have had their lives ruined" is the angle you want.

The angle should be that CBP is causing a lot of unjustified problems for legal residents and citizens. People having to spend 20k to get back property that the government never should've taken is not good for deterring undocumented immigrants. When CBP agents need to spend 20 days of the month rounding up people on farms and home depot to meet quota those are 20 days _not_ spent searching for drug dealers.

nxor•34m ago
Iryna Zarutska's life was ruined. When liberals downplay events like these, it pushes people to the other side, even if the other side has issues. It's not hateful to want less crime.
bigyabai•30m ago
Sure, and Charlie Kirk was murdered by a US citizen. It's okay for us to correlate a rising trend in political violence with something other than immigration.

It's not as pleasant or vindictive as saying "the nonwhites did it" but it certainly seems to hold true when the political pot boils over. It's rarely the immigrants taking potshots at the president or storming the capitol, but instead deluded ideologues who are naturalized Americans.

BirAdam•31m ago
I don't support any politicians. Trump may be more blatant about things, but nothing has fundamentally changed. Civil liberty was aspirational at the start of the USA, was once almost real, and then immediately began reversing.

A person in the USA has approximately zero of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of the Rights. The average person is relatively free, but the government can change that at will and the target of government power has little recourse.

PKop•19m ago
Of course we support this, but it hasn't gone far enough yet. Housing costs, crime rates, healthcare costs, insurance rates, and in general political outcomes will be improved by deporting million of illegal aliens. Competition for resources, territory, and political power are zero sum. Why would we support a mass importation of millions of foreigners? Trump ran on "mass deportations". He hasn't really gotten close to that yet, but he's a massive improvement over the previous admin who increased illegal immigration by millions.

The interests of foreigners mean nothing in comparison with the interests of the nation and it's own citizens. You live in an ahistorical fantasy world where the entire globe can just coexist in one place without conflict and consequence and citizens and their political leaders should serve these people at the expense of their own. It's insane, and it's not good for the country or Americans.

_joel•12m ago
Aren't your healthcare costs going to rapidly increase soon? Also with an approval rating so low, most Americans seem not to agree.
ChrisArchitect•35m ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45991257
shortrounddev2•33m ago
In the last admin I used to think that "abolish ICE" was hysterical.

I now believe we need to not only abolish ICE, but puts the politicians and officers on trial. CBP needs to be purged and rebuilt from the ground up.

greenavocado•32m ago
Modern cars log their GPS coordinates about every 60 seconds and maintain weeks of records at minimum. Police regularly obtain search warrants to view weeks of GPS logs from your infotainment system.
gosub100•28m ago
just saw this [1] today where the police chief was using license plate readers to stalk and harass "multiple victims". This is why you don't collect the information in the first place. I am sure the lawyers are one step ahead, but I think Flock should pay these victims directly (in addition to the PD) for failing to stop the misuse of their technology.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/braselton-police-chief-arre...

pstuart•21m ago
It's germane to point out the War on Drugs™ is a war on the people and has never been about "keeping people safe". I know that a lot of people say that cannabis is ok but hard drugs should not be legal to keep people safe. Look at how well that's worked out, as well as how the people involved with those drugs are treated (users are treated like dangerous criminals rather than with substance abuse issues).

This war along with the War on Terror™ give pretense to all of these abuses of power and need to be undone. The problems they profess to address can be addressed in much simpler, cheaper, and humane ways.

billy99k•7m ago
Canada has been authoritarian for awhile, while trying to claim to be 'nice'. The protestors during Covid got de-banked, fired, and arrested.

Democracies with Liberal leaders can quite literally get away with murder.