By: Philip | 05-23-2018 | News, Science
Photo credit:

Washington State Proposes Trackable Electronic License Plates

Washington state may make history as the first US state to enact trackable electronic license plates. Plans have been in the works for years evidently to toll more and more roads, but one thing standing in the way is keeping track of exactly where all the vehicles are at all times. Republican State Representative Mark Harmsworth is not sure about the viability of the solution for this issue. If he has his way, the "serious privacy concerns" of mandatory digital license plates that track all Washingtonians vehicles at all time will not come to be.

Harmsworth describes the program as “kind of like a Kindle.” I mean, technically, I guess Kindle is another source for the Big Data mills that are continually second-guessing our every next move before it's made.

On top of that though, the license plates themselves would be somewhat pricey at the cost of about $300 each. That doesn't even count the added (maintenance and upkeep? server storage?) fee of $7 to $12 per month on top of that.

MyNorthwest deconstructs the situation reasonably well:

<blockquote>How do you like that blockbuster bit of news there? You would have to rent a license plate that’s like a Kindle, and they would not only be able to track where you are, but that license plate would always be interacting with the state. You’d have to pay $300 for the plate, and, like a Netflix subscription, you’d have to pay a monthly fee to the state. And it’s all so your license plate can talk to state data collections.</blockquote>

“The state is grabbing more money, it wants to know more about what you’re doing, more about your driving behavior, and I just don’t think that’s acceptable,” Harmsworth said.

We're entering the era of ubiquitous internet and collecting data, tracking behavior and transmitting the findings is par for the course today. If more people don't speak up about the importance of our (Constitutionally guaranteed) privacy rights, then they may become as much a forgotten thing of the past as the Betamax.

<strong><span style="color:red;">Tips? Info? Send me a message!</span></strong>

~<b>Send Me An E-Mail!</b>

—<i>[email protected]</i>

<b><i>Follow Me On Twitter!</i></b>

<a href="">@kafkaguy</a>

<span style="margin-top:15px;rgba(42,51,6,0.7);font-size:12px;"><i>Be Sure To Share Our Articles!</i></span>

<span style="margin-top:15px;rgba(42,51,6,0.7);font-size:12px;"><b>The Goldwater</b></span>

Share this article
Thoughts on the above story? Comment below!
7 Comment/s
Anonymous No. 26904 2018-05-23 : 13:52

Can vote without a gov picture ID but hey give us a $hitload of money up front and a monthly fee so we can better keep track of you. GD libatards!

Elizabeth No. 26906 2018-05-23 : 13:58

I absolutely think this is a total violation of privacy and would refuse to live in a state that required it. It is against constitutional rights and should not be done. I am not ok with everyone "I don't even know who" is watching my every move. That is NOT a free nation that to me would be a communist action!

Anonymous No. 26909 2018-05-23 : 14:22

Think of the haking possibilities.

bradley No. 26946 2018-05-23 : 22:34

RCW 47.04.010 Definitions.

(11) "Highway." Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;

bradley No. 26947 2018-05-23 : 22:38

The information created and surrounding the stricti juris doctrine regarding a particular license which may, or may not, be represented by and revealed within the contents and control of a license agreement – “but must be revealed upon demand, and failure to do so is concealment, a withholding of material facts (the enducing, contractual consideration) known by those who have a duty and are bound to reveal.” Dolcater v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., D.C.N.Y., 2F.Supp. 637, 641.

bradley No. 26948 2018-05-23 : 22:41

"The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as ``consumer goods under UCC 9-109(1) or ``equipment under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).

happydrummerman No. 27310 2018-05-28 : 02:49

What a diseased person. This is why they want to take our firearms because if this started there would be a case for armed rebellion. Opportunity for hacker rebellion as well.

What do you think about this article?
Comment *

Recent News

Popular Stories