I live in the United States. I write software for a living. My wife is a physician.
If I had a need to spend $2k, I could do so easily, but I still think it’s a lot of money to burn. I wouldn’t spend it on a whim; I would not spend it without carefully, considering the value of what I get.
I would not even spend that much money in the businesses that I own, or recommended that my well capitalized employer spend that much money without being reasonably confident that the business would get good value for its money.
This feels like too far the other direction. I am of the opinion that the following are all reasonable, and I think most people would agree with me:
* Toll enforcement (the only thing allowed by the law)
* Speeding enforcement
* Parking enforcement
* Real-time alerting for vehicles that could be pulled over if you knew nothing other than the vehicle's identity. Stolen, unregistered, uninsured, amber-alert, etc. [1]
I think the following are all unreasonable, and I think most people would agree with me:
* Selling the data for any commercial purposes (perhaps with the exception of aggregated statistical data)
* Mining the data "suspicious patterns of activity".
I think the following is reasonable, but some people may disagree:
* Retaining the data for a limited time, so that if a crime is reported involving a specific vehicle, you can look back for sightings of the vehicle contemporaneous with the crime to help catch the bad guys.
Given my thoughts on what is and is not reasonable, I think the ideal policy is one that focuses on limiting retention, limiting sharing, and limiting the types of queries that can be performed on the data. Something like:
* Can retain the data for 90 days. Data that is evidence of a specific crime can be kept longer with the evidence file for that crime, and destroyed when the investigation is done.
* Can use the data where knowing a series of (time, place) pairs for a vehicle is probable cause of an infraction (or toll due). This covers speeding and parking and tools and red lights and registration/etc, but doesn't allow looking for suspicious patterns of activity.
* Can query the data for sightings of a specific vehicle with reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was involved in a crime. Need to keep records of these queries to identify abuse. Maybe need to notify owner when such a query is made.
* Can not disclose the data to third parties, except in the case when they agree to follow all these same rules (so you can share with other departments or law enforcement service providers, but that doesn't enable an end-run around the rules)
[1]: And I think it's important here that if data about a vehicle be eligible to be pulled over knowing nothing but it's license plate is out of date or otherwise wrong, then someone gets in serious trouble. Otherwise nobody is incentivized to keep their database up to date.
Just this morning I listened to an EFF podcast episode (Effector) about how license plate readers tend to suffer from mission creep. They might be deployed for one of the "reasonable" purposes you list but when the tool is available to lawenforcement it almost always becomes used for more and more purposes, like the example given in the article about tracking a woman who had an abortion.
The problem with these types of tools are that they provide a foothold into absolute enforcement, not just for current laws you find reasonable, but for all future laws from all future administrations which may not be reasonable.
Why should these cameras used for speeding enforcement today be used to track down protesters the admin decides to label as terrorists or legal immigrants who attended a pro Palestine rally tomorrow? They shouldn't.
As usual, it's a question of balance. In a country where people trust the government enough, or at least trust the system of checks and balances that must keep the government at bay, the idea of the benefits provided by proper use of the cameras outweighs the fear of the scope creep.
In a country where people expect the government to act unreasonably and to flout legal constraints, the fear of the scope creep and total surveillance outweighs the perceived benefits of legitimate use.
By answering this question, it's easy to determine how people feel about their country :-/
If a ALPR search was gated by a search warrant, upon probable cause by witness and signed by judge, I would have much less concern. Its still surveillance capitalism, but that at least would be due process.
Might be nitpicking, but USC 1983 does not prevent anything, it is an attempt at restitution after the fact, and even then, when qualified immunity in play the efficacy of even that is questionable.
What does it cost a police force to abuse this technology? Maybe down the road they'll have to spend an afternoon in court explaining how they were just following orders or they were doing as directed by the department's policies at the time. What does it cost a citizen? Beyond the legal costs, it could cost their job when they don't show up because they were unjustly arrested, it could be a chilling effect on their speech when they see their politically active neighbor targeted.
I stand by my statement that nothing prevents the creep from happening. There is no realized cost to those who make it happen.
> I am of the opinion that the following are all reasonable
I'm not. Tolls are fine since the "enforcement" there is of a known cost that you have to pay to use the road.
But I don't think speeding laws, or indeed any traffic laws that allow people to be fined or punished just because they broke some administrative rule, should exist at all as they exist now, let alone be enforced by automated cameras.
Even with cameras, it's obvious to anyone who drives that such laws are not even close to being actually enforceable as they're written. Raise your hand if you've gone faster than the posted speed limit on a US road, along with probably 95 percent or so of all the other cars on that road. Raise your other hand if you've not come to a complete stop at a stop sign because you can see that there are no other cars coming. And so on.
Such laws should not exist because "enforcement" becomes an arms race between the police and the citizen. It would be better to get rid of them and make things like speed limit signs, etc., advisory--you can't be ticketed just for not obeying them, but if you get in an accident and it's found that you weren't obeying a sign, you're presumed to be at fault. Then this whole issue would evaporate. The cameras could still be there--and their footage would be admissible evidence in any dispute about an actual accident. But they couldn't just trigger an automated ticket to be sent to you if no accident took place.
You multiply the "well we should allow it for uses X Y and Z" takes by every issue and the end result is that there's just enough political will to let the government walk all over everyone and everything else.
You have to draw a line in the sand otherwise you get the political equivalent of everyone littering "a little" and the cumulative result is things being crappy.
> I am of the opinion that the following are all reasonable, and I think most people would agree with me:
Absolutely not. The 4th Amendment, among others, are intended to make law enforcement more difficult. The alternative is tyranny. The power that these cameras provide is far beyond what they seem, and police have shown zero ability to be trusted with this sort of thing, and deserve zero benefit of the doubt, or trust to maintain logs only for x days, or not to use them for stalking people.
We optimize for law enforcement efficiency at our peril.
>> * Can retain the data for 90 days. Data that is evidence of a specific crime can be kept longer with the evidence file for that crime, and destroyed when the investigation is done.
Periodic vehicle inspection for emissions and safety compliance. Many jurisdictions already have this for gas engine emissions, a handful of states already have safety inspections. Done right, it can be low burden and low cost, and basically put an end to Def deletion. Done poorly it's grift to the shops that do the inspections, and an economically external annoyance to vehicle owners, and unnecessarily limits the ability of people to tinker with their own vehicles.
I don't really care how it affects car modders or people with sports cars. I have a sports car, and yeah the California smog test has been super annoying cause of electrical problems with that are unrelated to its actual emissions, but I knew what I was getting into when I bought something known for unreliability. Fixed it myself. There's a dude across the street with a modded car who always complains he has to bribe the smog guy $500, as if he was forced into driving a track car on the street. I just want regular cars to be drivable without undue burdens, and the enthusiasts can deal with it.
California gasoline tax pisses me off more because it's higher than anywhere else and the money seemingly goes nowhere.
I don't care too much about hot-rodders either. California specifically requires the original emissions equipment remain intact. Here's two cases where that fails:
1. Close to 20 years ago I read about someone who converted a car to an EV with an old electric forklift motor, but then couldn't register the car. It was a model year that still required smog checks, but it couldn't pass a smog check because the original emissions equipment wasn't installed anymore.
2. My brother inherited our dad's 1992 pickup, and tries to keep it in running order mostly out of nostalgia. He would like to replace the engine with a newer model that would burn less fuel, produce more power, and correctly installed, no doubt would have lower emissions. But then it wouldn't pass the smog check, because it wouldn't still have the original emissions equipment.
Having said all that, I agree that it disproportionately impacts the poor, because the poor tend to drive older cars that are more likely to need repairs to pass an inspection, and because the inspection fees make a larger impact on the budget of the poor, and because the employment flexibility to be without their car for half a day for the inspection, or longer if repairs are needed, is not as common among the poor. You could subsidize the inspections for low value cars, which would help with the cost aspect, but I don't know a way to solve the other aspects beyond trying to find the minimum amount of inspection that meets the policy goals.
California's way of doing it is really frustrating and very clearly meant to force older cars off the road and push people into buying new ones in an effort to help out dealers and car manufacturers.
My car is a bit older but its perfectly reliable. It doesn't require a monthly subscription, it doesn't track my location, it doesn't have a remote kill switch, and the title isn't owned by some bank. It would even blow fine on an emissions test. I still couldn't use it in California though because some of the original emissions equipment has failed and original replacements are impossible to find so alternative replacements have had to be used instead.
My car wouldn't pass, not because it can't pass the emissions test, but because the original equipment that California requires by law failed years ago and replacements are not available. So I would be forced to get rid of my perfectly good car and buy an expensive new one not because it doesn't work, but because the law strictly requires original equipment.
All my Vehicles are many decades older. I think it would impose a financial burden on many in my community who also have older vehicles (less financially well off) to get them up to 'spec'. The vast majority of cars are newer and would have no issue passing.
I had to sell by beloved modded sports car when I moved to California. It blew clean as a whistle, but since the aftermarket parts were all from out of state (installed over the course of years), the state failed it as “tampered.” What a pile of shit. These guys are somehow driving around rolling coal on cyclists without getting grief, but I have to get rid of my car because it doesn’t have the right CA stamp on the intake system. CA’s system is terrible for home mechanics.
The rules mostly penalise the poor (and often unfairly).
You are severely underestimating how hard "done right" is.
I'm from New Zealand and the yearly car checkup is burdensome. About $75 and an hour wasted minimum to get car checked.
However the workshop profits come from fixing faults so their economic incentive is to find faults.
It costs you way more time if something needs fixing (parts delays, getting car and from workshop, etc.)
Our warrant of fitness regulations are ostensibly for safety (yours and others). However the jobsworth wonks have zero incentive to balance the risks versus the costs. The rules get stricter every year for goals that have no measurable outcome.
Many of the safety regulations are sensible, but many are just bullshit.
From memory (I haven't lived in NZ for a while now), the WoF check could be done at VTNZ stations, which explicitly did not do repairs to avoid this conflict of interest.
Alas, it looks like VTNZ was privatised and the exact outcome you would expect happened.
But really I think the government incentives are the root cause.
Fortunately I can still find workshops that care about doing a good job (more than they care about ripping off customers). But I feel bad for anyone who can't pick good services: which takes skill and costs time.
I never used VTNZ because I found them to be overly picky when I tried them. I thought VTNZ followed the rules too strictly and you didn't get any fair relaxation. I didn't know the history you have mentioned.
New Zealand sounds unreasonable. It's reasonable in like California. They don't mandate yearly checkups, just smog testing which is every 2 years for cars older than 8 years.
My experience is that there's a correlation between powerful type systems and the property that once your program compiles, it's correct. Compiles == correct is rarely true in C or JavaScript. It's often true in Haskell and Rust. TypeScript is somewhere in between C and Rust.
There's a niche available for a language which is relatively easy for a human to read, but with a very powerful at the expense of difficult to use type system. The language would let you make all sorts of assertions whose meaning are easy for the human to see, but to compile would need to come along with correctness proofs. The language is meant to be written by AI, which can battle the compiler, and write the proofs, but then read by humans who can verify that the AI wrote the program they wanted and/or direct the AI to make changes.
>My experience is that there's a correlation between powerful type systems and the property that once your program compiles, it's correct. Compiles == correct is rarely true in C or JavaScript. It's often true in Haskell and Rust.
I find this staggeringly hard to believe. Most bugs are logic errors. How does Rust or Haskell prevent these?
Haskell gives you quite a powerful set of tools for constraining and reasoning about your program's behavior. For instance, its ability to define pure functions and control side effects is a very powerful tool for preventing certain classes of bugs. Dereferencing invalid pointer locations and out of bounds array lookups are large classes of bugs in mainstream languages that Haskell basically eliminates entirely. It's not at all the same thing as what you get from the type systems in languages like Java, C++, etc. You really have to try it to appreciate it.
Most of my bugs are logic errors. I write Java. Your comment seems to imply that moving to Rust or Haskell would make a correct program if it compiles.
Not federal, but this: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344/ To be clear by 'commercial purposes', it's advertising/promotion/marketing. Paparazzi photos would be alright by that bar. I presume the idea is to avoid any implied endorsement by those photographed.
It's called the right of publicity. Basically the idea that you're entitled to compensation to for commercial use of your likeness. AFAIK, you always have to be recognizable to sue over it as you have to see your likeness, and damages would be pretty minor if you're not famous or an actor anyway. It depends on the state but generally it does have to be in advertising.
This isn't the first time this month I've read about someone suffering consequences of mistaken identity after their facial recognition said they look like someone who committed a crime. I'm sure this is starting to happen at an alarming rate.
The fundamental problem is that among the 350 million people living in the United States, there are a lot of pairs of people who look pretty darn similar. It used to be impractical to ask a question like "who in the US looks like the person in this security footage", and so as a matter of practicality, once you found someone who looks like the suspect, you probably also have other evidence, even if it's pretty weak, linking them to the crime.
But with AI, you can ask "who in the US looks like this person", and so we need to re-calibrate what it means if all you know is that someone looks like a suspect. I am of the opinion that "looks like someone," in the absence of any other evidence, is reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause, that you are the person you look like. Reasonable suspicion is enough for the police to stop you on the street and ask for your ID, but not enough to arrest you. There are other data points that alone might not even be reasonable suspicion, but could be combined with "looks like someone" to make probable cause, such as "was near the place at the time the crime happened".
AI isn't really the problem, even whether or not the AI's determination that two people look alike is valid or reviewed by a human isn't the problem. The problem is assuming that because two people look alike they must be the same person, even if you have no other evidence of them being the same person.
If, like me, you were wondering how a 52 year old could have been a developer on a game you remember playing on an NES in the late 80s or early 90s: It looks like Īda's Castlevania involvement started around 2003, working in increasingly senior roles on Castlevania games released since then.
Same... I remember when Super Castlevania IV came out on the SNES our jaw dropped when we saw that the whole level began to rotate. We were already coding back then but probably not old enough to be professional game developers (although some started really young).
Mind-blowing effect (for 1991) begins at 2min 12s:
I must have been really intimidating to come on only 6 years after Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and after a run of forgettable entries in the series.
This is what I do too, but be warned about “fire proof” - a fire that results in the total loss of your house will create enough heat for enough time that fireproof gun safes and smaller fireproof lockboxes will be destroyed, or even if not, their contents will get hot enough to combust anyway.
A bank safe deposit box offers a different security profile that’s probably more robust against fire because banks burn less often than houses.
It’s probably not practical to really be robust against fire without being buried several feet deep.
While the fire resulted in the total loss of the house it was actually the water from the fire department not the heat that did proportionally more damage.
As a mental model you shouldn’t think of it as “what if my house burns down?” so much as “what if nice strangers roll up to my windows and chainsaw through my roof and spray 50,000 gallons of water in here?”
Yes everything in the mechanical room melted but everything in the rest of the house got hot, smoky, soaked and then moldy.
For root of trust materiel like social security cards, cash, passports put in a ziplock bag in a fireproof, waterproof safe. But for other storage I use clear “Ezy Storage” brand stackable 50L tubs labeled with Homebox QR codes. In the US, Target and Home Depot frequently stock them. I am very anti black and yellow tubs.
The majority of work post-fire goes to itemizing your house inventory for insurance. Even cataloging all your bathroom’s soaps by brand name rather than generic can make $100 difference. Multiply that by 500x different things.
From a threat model perspective I look at rooms from a “what would be salvageable in here if I emptied a swimming pool’s worth of water from some fire sprinklers”. Furniture and TVs are easy to replace. Other stuff less so.
We did that with major hail damage a few years ago. I learned that in a disaster, you should count on everything being junk, and you're lucky if you can salvage anything. We also learned the value of itemized lists.
1500/piece for 20 junk windows I was building a greenhouse with that I dug out of the trash the year before. $250 for a bird feeder because they couldn't find one outside of specialty stores. $40k instead of 10k for a new roof on the shed because it was heavier gauge metal than standard.
Exact replacements can be expensive, but you need to make sure your insurance has 100% replacement instead of adjusted for age or like-kind replacements.
After that experience, we itemized EVERYTHING in the house with make, model, serial number, and color. It was a bitch to get set up, but took the value of our home contents from around 75k to over 250k for exact replacements.
Copies of these records along with our master password for our keepass database are in two bank deposit boxes about 45 minutes apart. For $50/year we can sleep easy.
We have keys. In the event those are lost or destroyed, they will provide access to an approved list of individuals and drill the lock for $40.
Also they're small town banks, so that makes it easier as well. We don't really need to worry about providing ID, but if we did and couldn't access ID or something like that, we have four other people listed with access, one of which lives hours away in case of a disaster impacting everyone else on the list. They don't have keys but could get into it for us. So for a few hundred dollars, we're set and insured for the declared value of the contents of the boxes (250k max for another $15/year) if the banks are both destroyed as well!
Bank vault can be key+combination (eg three letters) or dual key or others. For example in a dual key: one key from the bank and one key being your own key.
If a key is lost, you go and prove your identity (easier if any bank employee is familiar with you) and ask for a new key. A date is set and a locksmith shall come, you are next to him and next to the bank employee while he uses the bank's key and lockpicks your lock. Then he configures it for a new key (or replace the lock).
It's cost you something like $300 or whatever.
Source: been next to locksmith opening a bank vault, twice, in two different countries. Once for a bank belonging to a deceased family member (we had the key but not the three-letters combination) and once not because I lost my key but because the bank's lock (on my vault) went defective.
So it's not "my key from the my vault at the bank melted during a housefire, so I can never access my vault at the bank anymore" nor is it "I forgot my three-letters combination, so until the end of the universe that bank vault shall stay locked".
In general, identity (the bank checking who you are) is often involved in regular unlocking and there will be an identity-only recovery procedure that will work even if you lose your usual credential (key, passcode, card, whatever). This may involve drilling a lock and the bill for that.
My insurance agent has recommended that once a year or so I carefully walk through the house with a video recorder, opening every cabinet and drawer and tool box and so on. It's easier than constructing a detailed inventory, but gives you the raw data you need to construct one in the unlikely even that you need it.
The plastic used in the black/yellow brand is brittle when it gets cold — it breaks upon simple impact/sliding. Also, you cannot see inside them without opening the lid.
The clear plastic is usually a bit thicker, and more rubberized — it'll still break, but more difficultly.
As to why they're against them, I don't know their reason, but there used to be only one size of tote. There there was big and small. And then, for some fxcking reason, they decided to make ones that were roughly as big as the big ones. Just enough that you have to take half a second to re-eyeball-ruler measure them. But in isolation, if you've got one in front of you, you can't know if it'll tetris properly with another one until they're side-by-side and it turns out they're not.
In December 2025, items worth an estimated €30 million were stolen from a Sparkasse bank in the Gelsenkirchen suburb of Buer, Germany. The thieves used a large drill to break into the bank's underground vault and proceeded to crack over 3,000 safe deposit boxes.
Don’t need events that extreme. Regular branch banks have stuff go missing from the safety deposit boxes shockingly regularly. The locks aren’t particularly secure and various people are able to access them. It can be hard to find articles about them because they don’t make the news like the more remarkable incidents do. Examples of boring security box failures (but that were noteworthy in other ways so they did make the news): Jennifer Morsch, Roberta Glassman, Lianna Sarabekyan (multiple customers affected), Philip Poniz, Wells Fargo in Cape Coral FL, Wells Fargo Katy TX (many customers affected, blamed on road construction down the street), lots of individual stories where banks just totally stopped following their own procedures on ID checking and logging.
The vast majority of these don’t make the news because there’s no proof there was even anything inside the box in the first place so anyone could be lying.
> Mr. Pluard, who tracks legal filings and news reports, estimates that around 33,000 boxes a year are harmed by accidents, natural disasters and thefts.
> Oddly, the bank returned to him five watches that weren’t his. “They were the wrong color, the wrong size — totally different than what I had,” Mr. Poniz said. “I had no idea where they came from.”
> Regular branch banks have stuff go missing from the safety deposit boxes shockingly regularly. The locks aren’t particularly secure and various people are able to access them.
My late wife had a safe deposit box in the Almaden Valley (San Jose) branch of US Bank. Her key to the box was nowhere to be found. So I had to get the box drilled open.
This would normally require a hefty fee. But the branch was moving to a new location, so they invited customers to make an appointment to show up a Saturday with proper ID for a lock drilling party.
I showed my ID and the death certificate, and we went into the safe to have the lock drilled.
But there was no real drilling involved. The locksmith had a little handheld gadget that she pushed into the lock, gave it a little twist, and the door came right open.
The ironic part? All that was in there were a few pieces of costume jewelry, worth maybe $50 in total.
She was paying more than that per year for the box rental, and if I'd had to pay for the "drilling" it would probably be more than that.
I was with my mother when she went to close her safe deposit box. Her key did not work, so after checking her ID (could be fake), they used a tool that very quickly removed the lock. We were then left alone in the camera-less room with all of the other boxes and the tool...
Sure... if you don't have a spouse, leave it with a sibling. I put my Bitcoin key in my brother's safe. And if you don't have a sibling or parent or best friend, you can usually rent a locker at a bank.
A real innovation from the Bitcoin world! There are several physical password store systems that they have suggested for this kind of use case. The simplest is basically using a nail to punch out a password onto a piece of sheet metal.
Only thing about safe deposit boxes - make sure that things needed in the event of your death, especially your will, are not there.
The bank will seal the box as soon as they discover you are dead, and require a court order. Without a will, the executor will be whatever statutory person your state calls for.
Is there a better class of safe one could use that might be more successful even if not a guarantee? F/e even with a safe deposit box, one might still have some lower-tier items that would be impractical to store in one but you might want to do better than just out in the open.
do you store stuff in a bank? could you tell me more about it? my account gives me access to one for free and been meaning to put a yubikey there for a while but never have
I do. I have a small safe deposit box in my local branch for about $1 a year.
It's great if you want to store some documents. But don't expect _real_ security. It's guarded by a minimum-wage employee, and the keys are usually laughably insecure. Banks know this, so they cap their liability for the loss of the deposit box at around $1000.
So don't even think about storing gold bars there, like they do in movies.
There _are_ companies that provide safe storage for high-value items, but they are pretty exotic.
What if you RAID01 it, so you have four safety deposit boxes, two with the first half of your password, two with the second half of your password? Then no snoop at a particular bank would be able to get your password, but also if one or two go missing, the password won't be lost. And you just check all four boxes once or twice a year to make sure everything is good.
My (large) bank is yanking their safety deposit boxes out. They let subscribers know that they have, like, 1 or 2 years to go. They're doing it across the branches. They basically feel it's not worth the liability any more, and the way it was presented to me, it's not just them, but other banks are also doing (or at least considering) this.
Things we take for granted. When my father passed, I was digging stuff out of SDBs that he had for decades.
Maybe not safe for valuables. What about stuff that has no value to anyone else? I'm not a villain from Ocean's Eleven, no one is stealing my passwords to break into my elaborate safe.
What I found out when I was burgled, was that they don't care. I had nothing valuable in my firesafe but they still took it wholesale. I found some papers from it drifting around outside afterwards like they had dumped it out. But not my passport or SSN card. The lock was even broken so they could have just opened it to see that and saved themselves the lift. But again, they don't care.
As someone who recently replaced a few windows in my house, I can say in no uncertain terms that spending $1200 for a lamp and paying to feed it 0.58kW is cheaper than hiring a contractor to add another window. And it works all day.
If I had a need to spend $2k, I could do so easily, but I still think it’s a lot of money to burn. I wouldn’t spend it on a whim; I would not spend it without carefully, considering the value of what I get.
I would not even spend that much money in the businesses that I own, or recommended that my well capitalized employer spend that much money without being reasonably confident that the business would get good value for its money.
reply