ODOT: ‘Strong opposition’ from public on I-205 tolling

[kalvado]

Recognition is a software feature, function of image quality. Camera good enough to read the plate should be good enough to read the face, rest is again a subject of good (bad) will.

Right, but camera angles designed to read rear license plates, the standard in the US given the sheer number of states that do not require front license plates, naturally cannot see someone's face. Cameras would have to be placed specifically to look at oncoming traffic rather than simply looking at the rear of a vehicle. Placing those cameras requires a bit more than just ignoring good will.

I wonder if this is more of east coast vs west coast thing.. I definitely see a lot of cameras looking into the windshield. I don't see it on Google, but my impression was  NYSTA specifically has one looking into driver's face:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6987241,-73.8438627,3a,75y,153.67h,101.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfgFM6j7T03Ihb31HO89wFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Another example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2974512,-73.2444127,3a,75y,171.3h,124.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf-LyeWeTy2DnkFfaB_B4Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I certainly see something aiming at the windshield here as well, looks like 2 different cameras.

[jakeroot]

Recognition is a software feature, function of image quality. Camera good enough to read the plate should be good enough to read the face, rest is again a subject of good (bad) will.

Right, but camera angles designed to read rear license plates, the standard in the US given the sheer number of states that do not require front license plates, naturally cannot see someone's face. Cameras would have to be placed specifically to look at oncoming traffic rather than simply looking at the rear of a vehicle. Placing those cameras requires a bit more than just ignoring good will.

I wonder if this is more of east coast vs west coast thing.. I definitely see a lot of cameras looking into the windshield. I don't see it on Google, but my impression was  NYSTA specifically has one looking into driver's face:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6987241,-73.8438627,3a,75y,153.67h,101.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfgFM6j7T03Ihb31HO89wFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Another example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2974512,-73.2444127,3a,75y,171.3h,124.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf-LyeWeTy2DnkFfaB_B4Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I certainly see something aiming at the windshield here as well, looks like 2 different cameras.

So I had to go and do some more research. Turns out, cameras looking at the front of cars is actually quite common at overhead toll gates, but they are apparently there for two reason: (1) to detect toll tags, and (2) to record the interaction. But they don't seem to be angled to view faces.

There is only one toll booth in WA (WA-16, eastbound Tacoma Narrows Bridge) and the only cameras point at the rear of the vehicle. Cameras like those at NY toll gates (which I would guess are on the way out) are not something I've seen before.

To use facial recognition, I think you need the cameras to be lower than what you'd normally see at toll gates.

[kalvado]

Recognition is a software feature, function of image quality. Camera good enough to read the plate should be good enough to read the face, rest is again a subject of good (bad) will.

Right, but camera angles designed to read rear license plates, the standard in the US given the sheer number of states that do not require front license plates, naturally cannot see someone's face. Cameras would have to be placed specifically to look at oncoming traffic rather than simply looking at the rear of a vehicle. Placing those cameras requires a bit more than just ignoring good will.

I wonder if this is more of east coast vs west coast thing.. I definitely see a lot of cameras looking into the windshield. I don't see it on Google, but my impression was  NYSTA specifically has one looking into driver's face:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6987241,-73.8438627,3a,75y,153.67h,101.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfgFM6j7T03Ihb31HO89wFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Another example: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2974512,-73.2444127,3a,75y,171.3h,124.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf-LyeWeTy2DnkFfaB_B4Yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I certainly see something aiming at the windshield here as well, looks like 2 different cameras.

So I had to go and do some more research. Turns out, cameras looking at the front of cars is actually quite common at overhead toll gates, but they are apparently there for two reason: (1) to detect toll tags, and (2) to record the interaction. But they don't seem to be angled to view faces.

There is only one toll booth in WA (WA-16, eastbound Tacoma Narrows Bridge) and the only cameras point at the rear of the vehicle. Cameras like those at NY toll gates (which I would guess are on the way out) are not something I've seen before.

To use facial recognition, I think you need the cameras to be lower than what you'd normally see at toll gates.

Well, with overhead gantry it will look at the face at a weird angle, but the face will come into field of view at some point. Not sure how much software can do about it these days. I don't know why the camera has to look for the tag; at least in case of EZpass  those big flat antennas are doing the job.
And I visually remember some face looking cameras on Thruway booths, don't want to scan entire state on google.

My specific impression about Masspike is that there are much more than just plate readers - at least 6 devices per lane. EZpass antenna, 2 cameras, 2 lidars as they say, and something else.

[Plutonic Panda]

God I hope they don't toll any roads in Portland. What a dumb decision if they go through with it. Widen the fucking highways and add two express lanes each way with a GP lane or two in each direction. Simply tolling it to price out cars is lazy, discriminatory, and bad government.

[jakeroot]

God I hope they don't toll any roads in Portland. What a dumb decision if they go through with it. Widen the fucking highways and add two express lanes each way with a GP lane or two in each direction. Simply tolling it to price out cars is lazy, discriminatory, and bad government.

There's actually studies that have shown toll roads are better for low income individuals. Particularly because they tend to improve bus reliability, and reduce the need to increase general-use taxes (particularly sales) which places a greater burden on lower income individuals more often than others. Additionally, homes near freeways are often lower value; demolishing them to widen a freeway often means displacement of lower income individuals, who may not necessary have somewhere else to go. Especially if they are renting something affordable.

In the case of the 205, there's also the MAX tracks to deal with, which in some spots directly abut the freeway. Widening through here would either mean relocating the MAX tracks, or curving the freeway to account for additional lanes.

I'm not here to say that widening with proper GP+ETL isn't better overall, but that's not always physically possible with whatever funds might have already been set aside, much less politically viable.

[deathtopumpkins]

My specific impression about Masspike is that there are much more than just plate readers - at least 6 devices per lane. EZpass antenna, 2 cameras, 2 lidars as they say, and something else.

MassPike gantries include E-ZPass antennas, rear cameras and lights, front cameras and lights, and an additional camera and sensor system used to detect and classify vehicles.

[SectorZ]

I almost died reading the back half of this post. Some people really do think the government is benevolent with the info collected by tracking its residents. That's pretty terrifying.

[Sub-Urbanite]

I almost died reading the back half of this post. Some people really do think the government is benevolent with the info collected by tracking its residents. That's pretty terrifying.

All this info is being collected anyway, dude. At least the government has a modicum of transparency. You think Google is benevolent with its information?

I don't get why people are cool with Google having all this but not cool with the government, which *allows* you to use motor vehicles on a highway (it's not a right!), tracking you to figure out how much to charge you for road usage.

[vdeane]

I don't like private companies tracking people and having all that data either, but at least they can't arrest you, and their data is a step removed from the people who can (IMO not anywhere close to a big enough step, but that's beyond the purview of this forum).

I'm also not a fan of the "driving is a privilege" view overall, but I recognize it's necessity to some extent, as otherwise we wouldn't have licences and would have no recourse against bad drivers.  That said, IMO if you're a good driver and your car is in good condition and you're not doing anything that would likely harm others (like driving drunk), then it should be treated as a right.

[kalvado]

I don't like private companies tracking people and having all that data either, but at least they can't arrest you, and their data is a step removed from the people who can (IMO not anywhere close to a big enough step, but that's beyond the purview of this forum).

I'm also not a fan of the "driving is a privilege" view overall, but I recognize it's necessity to some extent, as otherwise we wouldn't have licences and would have no recourse against bad drivers.  That said, IMO if you're a good driver and your car is in good condition and you're not doing anything that would likely harm others (like driving drunk), then it should be treated as a right.

As a side comment - there is a concept of "qualified right", although not in US legal vocabulary. That wording is used in European Convention of Human Rights, and means just what you describe, something above the privilege: a right which is not absolute, but which needs to be balanced against higher-order rights- e.g. the needs of public safety.

[Plutonic Panda]

God I hope they don't toll any roads in Portland. What a dumb decision if they go through with it. Widen the fucking highways and add two express lanes each way with a GP lane or two in each direction. Simply tolling it to price out cars is lazy, discriminatory, and bad government.

There's actually studies that have shown toll roads are better for low income individuals. Particularly because they tend to improve bus reliability, and reduce the need to increase general-use taxes (particularly sales) which places a greater burden on lower income individuals more often than others. Additionally, homes near freeways are often lower value; demolishing them to widen a freeway often means displacement of lower income individuals, who may not necessary have somewhere else to go. Especially if they are renting something affordable.

In the case of the 205, there's also the MAX tracks to deal with, which in some spots directly abut the freeway. Widening through here would either mean relocating the MAX tracks, or curving the freeway to account for additional lanes.

I'm not here to say that widening with proper GP+ETL isn't better overall, but that's not always physically possible with whatever funds might have already been set aside, much less politically viable.

You make several good points here. Didn't want to let this post go. I definitely agree with your last paragraph.

[SectorZ]

I almost died reading the back half of this post. Some people really do think the government is benevolent with the info collected by tracking its residents. That's pretty terrifying.

All this info is being collected anyway, dude. At least the government has a modicum of transparency. You think Google is benevolent with its information?

I don't get why people are cool with Google having all this but not cool with the government, which *allows* you to use motor vehicles on a highway (it's not a right!), tracking you to figure out how much to charge you for road usage.

(Hoping to bank on your promise that there is a 40% chance this isn't trolling)

Where did I say I was happy with Google or anyone tracking? I bring Google to court over transparency issues, I have a chance. I've seen Google have their ass handed to them by courts all over the Western world for a decade for lying about many things they do or promise to do. What happens if I bring the government to court, given Congress hasn't exempted many reaches of government from any liability for their actions.

Where is it not a right to drive on a highway? It is indeed a right if you can pass a driving test and play by the rules once doing so - a right to the privilege at a minimum. A government cannot prevent you from driving on a highway if you follow the laws outlining they wrote about accessing said highway.

I can't wrap my head around people thinking the government is transparent. Maybe living in Massachusetts (and actually paying attention, something few in my allegedly intellectual state do) has battle hardened me a tad. Don't take it personally.

[Rothman]

I think people who are worried about privacy are clinging to the idea that their lives are more significant that they are.  For most of us, our data is pretty boring.  We get up, we go to work, we go to sleep.  People afraid of government knowing...that?  There's nothing that interesting about us.

[vdeane]

I think people who are worried about privacy are clinging to the idea that their lives are more significant that they are.  For most of us, our data is pretty boring.  We get up, we go to work, we go to sleep.  People afraid of government knowing...that?  There's nothing that interesting about us.

Our data, out of context, can lead to interest.  Imagine a government applying AI to look for suspicious travel patterns to locate potential criminals and terrorists.  Something gets flagged?  Better arrest them and bring them in for questioning! SWAT team shows up at your door, and you get dragged off in a bathrobe with the whole world seeing when the footage makes the nightly news in a few weeks...

I think people who think "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" either vastly underestimate what can be constructed from data points or lead very boring lives.  Or they just have no sense of privacy and boundaries.  There have been known cases of people at the intelligence agencies stalking people they know with the data the government gathers.

Or just think about the cyber security scenarios.  Some criminal hacks into the database and installs a backdoor.  Now they just need to look for when people are away from home to break in and steal their stuff...

[Rothman]

Pfft.  What do we have that's worth going to all that trouble to steal?

Our lives are pretty...mundane.  Thinking the Government will have an interest in them is just a desperate stretch for significance.

There's a lot to be said for contentment in insignificance.

[kalvado]

I think people who are worried about privacy are clinging to the idea that their lives are more significant that they are.  For most of us, our data is pretty boring.  We get up, we go to work, we go to sleep.  People afraid of government knowing...that?  There's nothing that interesting about us.

Our data, out of context, can lead to interest.  Imagine a government applying AI to look for suspicious travel patterns to locate potential criminals and terrorists.  Something gets flagged?  Better arrest them and bring them in for questioning! SWAT team shows up at your door, and you get dragged off in a bathrobe with the whole world seeing when the footage makes the nightly news in a few weeks...

I think people who think "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" either vastly underestimate what can be constructed from data points or lead very boring lives.  Or they just have no sense of privacy and boundaries.  There have been known cases of people at the intelligence agencies stalking people they know with the data the government gathers.

Or just think about the cyber security scenarios.  Some criminal hacks into the database and installs a backdoor.  Now they just need to look for when people are away from home to break in and steal their stuff...

I would be more concerned about the emergence of some sort of classification. Right now Chinese social rating is pretty much unthinkable in US, so we have 20-30 years until it becomes a reality. If you think it will never happen - well, it is already somewhat here
If nothing else, it will show up in private background checks - and I, for one, was subject to such check last year. I wasn't too comfortable reading the report (which was sent to HR for review) - despite it being crispy clean, one speeding ticket being the only speckle...  Whatever it worth.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think people who are worried about privacy are clinging to the idea that their lives are more significant that they are.  For most of us, our data is pretty boring.  We get up, we go to work, we go to sleep.  People afraid of government knowing...that?  There's nothing that interesting about us.

Our data, out of context, can lead to interest.  Imagine a government applying AI to look for suspicious travel patterns to locate potential criminals and terrorists.  Something gets flagged?  Better arrest them and bring them in for questioning! SWAT team shows up at your door, and you get dragged off in a bathrobe with the whole world seeing when the footage makes the nightly news in a few weeks...

I think people who think "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" either vastly underestimate what can be constructed from data points or lead very boring lives.  Or they just have no sense of privacy and boundaries.  There have been known cases of people at the intelligence agencies stalking people they know with the data the government gathers.

Or just think about the cyber security scenarios.  Some criminal hacks into the database and installs a backdoor.  Now they just need to look for when people are away from home to break in and steal their stuff...

I would be more concerned about the emergence of some sort of classification. Right now Chinese social rating is pretty much unthinkable in US, so we have 20-30 years until it becomes a reality. If you think it will never happen - well, it is already somewhat here
If nothing else, it will show up in private background checks - and I, for one, was subject to such check last year. I wasn't too comfortable reading the report (which was sent to HR for review) - despite it being crispy clean, one speeding ticket being the only speckle...  Whatever it worth.

If more people are disqualified because of a lack of higher social ratings I can see this leading to a large increase in crime and it would be justifiable.

[vdeane]

Pfft.  What do we have that's worth going to all that trouble to steal?

Our lives are pretty...mundane.  Thinking the Government will have an interest in them is just a desperate stretch for significance.

There's a lot to be said for contentment in insignificance.

You're still imagining a world where humans will have to analyze everything.  But that's not the way the world is evolving.  And with computers analyzing things, they can analyze everyone, "mundane" or not.  And the computers won't know what roadgeeking is.  They'll just see travel patterns that deviate from the norm, as determined by their algorithms forged by machine learning (which will definitely NOT include roadgeek itineraries!).

And you'd be amazed what cyber criminals will do sometimes.  People have hacked into high-profile accounts for twitter handles.  Yes, really.  And if private companies that house customer data and credit card info can't be bothered to secure their systems, do you really think the government will?  The Thruway Authority hasn't even bothered to make SSL the default on their website, and that takes only a minute or two with a .htaccess file.  All traffic to the Thruway site goes over insecure HTTP in plain text for anybody sniffing internet traffic anywhere in the chain to see unless the user manually changes the URL (which, if someone is using Chrome, may require enabling a flag and restarting the browser, because Google assumes everyone is thinking about security and has deemed the "https://www." part of the URL to be unimportant).  The NY E-ZPass site stores passwords in plain text instead of hashing them, and even has a maximum character limit that is fairly low, no doubt using very outdated guidelines that emphasized complexity over length (guidelines that were written, by the way, before automated attacks were a thing).  And they expect people to store credit card and bank account (!) information in their accounts.  Insane.
https://medium.com/@N/how-i-lost-my-50-000-twitter-username-24eb09e026dd
https://www.wired.com/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/

[Sub-Urbanite]

OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.

So using it to pay for highway infrastructure — on a highway the state is not obligated to provide to us — seems fairly innocuous. Especially when the alternative is the status quo.

[kalvado]

OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.

So using it to pay for highway infrastructure — on a highway the state is not obligated to provide to us — seems fairly innocuous. Especially when the alternative is the status quo.

This is not about elections, where you have a choice between 70+ year old fart and an old fart who is 70+ years old.
Things are much more gradual, and they can change to better or worse.
Addressing public concerns is definitely a good idea for any government agency, and concerns are expressed. Many of us will never drive I-205, but discussion is pretty universal, regardless of specific road.
From my perspective, a clear and legally enforceable policy on data handling and usage, preferably mandated by federal law, would be a good starting point. I have a few other questions to the way tolls, especially toll by plate, is handled as well. 
Things being done certain way in the past doesn't mean changes are impossible.

[sp_redelectric]

It probably would gain a lot more support if the toll revenues were required to be spent on the roadway, but instead this is a ploy by Metro to rob Peter (highway users) to pay for Paul (light rail and other non-highway uses).  That's why there is so much opposition.

At least the proponents have wised up - in previous incarnations of the "we won't dare have a tollbooth" toll plan for the I-5/Interstate Bridge/Columbia River Crossing project the idea was to force non-transponder users to actually exit the freeway and purchase a one-time use toll at local businesses like convenience stores.  Yeah, let's clog up Hayden Island and Delta Park more than it already is...

[Sub-Urbanite]

It probably would gain a lot more support if the toll revenues were required to be spent on the roadway, but instead this is a ploy by Metro to rob Peter (highway users) to pay for Paul (light rail and other non-highway uses).  That's why there is so much opposition.

Which is interesting, given that A) the plan is from the Legislature, and B) the Oregon Constitution limits how toll revenue could be spent. I'm curious if the "transit improvements in or along the roadway" is just for capital improvements or if it can be used for, say, operation of a bus from the Oregon City Transit Center to the Tualatin Transit Center. But I'm pretty sure anyone who tried to build light rail with toll money would get sued and lose.


https://www.oregon.gov/odot/tolling/Documents/2020_0430_ODOT_I-5_I-205_TollProjects_FAQs.pdf

"The Keep Oregon Moving legislation (House Bill 2017) established a Congestion Relief Fund which would receive any net proceeds from tolling. The Oregon Constitution (Article IX, Section 3a) specifies that revenues collected from the use or operation of motor vehicles is spent on roadway projects, which could include construction or reconstruction of travel lanes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities or transit improvements in or along the roadway."

[vdeane]

OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.

And that makes it OK?  I don't agree - we need to roll this back and get more protections for people's privacy.

[SectorZ]

OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.

So using it to pay for highway infrastructure — on a highway the state is not obligated to provide to us — seems fairly innocuous. Especially when the alternative is the status quo.

I can also sue the living shit out of them over that. I may not win, but I can.

The government has near complete immunity, short of fear of tarring and feathering, from the same actions.

[Rothman]

OK, but to all of the people listing these dystopian scenarios: All of these are already happening. Private industry has your location data. Private companies can put license plate readers on the side of the road and track where you're driving. And police can get a warrant to get any of that data if they want.

So using it to pay for highway infrastructure — on a highway the state is not obligated to provide to us — seems fairly innocuous. Especially when the alternative is the status quo.

I can also sue the living shit out of them over that. I may not win, but I can.

The government has near complete immunity, short of fear of tarring and feathering, from the same actions.

Sovereign immunity differs state to state.