backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by foolsgambit11.. on Jul 23 at 2:36 AM


  (Source: Obama Campaign; modifications: Jason Mick/DailyTech)
License plate scanners are non-transparent and a threat to privacy, says ACLU

Across the country, police departments are receiving millions of dollars from the federal government to scan and store the license plates of law abiding Americans.  Much like the recent controversy over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) collecting metadata on 99 percent of smartphone-using Americans, the driving concern about these scanners is that they give the feds -- and anyone who compromises their databases -- detailed maps to track law abiding citizens' movements.

I. Big Brother is Watching You on the Road

The amount of information collected is staggering in the few instances where statistics is known:
  • Maryland:
    • Jan.-May 2012
    • 29 million license plates read
    • 7,000 plates read by an officer's vehicle per shift
    • Only 60,000 were suspicious
    • Of these only 1,800 were something more serious than an invalid/expired/suspended registration or emissions violation
  • Jersey City, N.J.:
    • 250,000 citizens
    • 2 million license plates read per year
    • 5 year storage
    • An estimated 10 million plates on record
  • Yonkers, N.Y.:
    • Plate scans stored "indefinitely" as a "reactive investigative tool"
    • Quantity read is unknown
    • Detectives use database to track a suspects past and present movements, based on the plates
  • Mesquite Police Department, Texas:
    • All plate scans since 2008 on file
    • Dept. will delete license plate records older than 2 years, next month
    • Lt. Bill Hedgpeth [spokesman], "There's no expectation of privacy [on public roads and parking lots]." (Sound familiar?)
  • Minneapolis, Minn.:
    • Jan.-Aug. 2012
    • 4.9 million license plates read
    • Members of the public could ask for information on a specific plate until data was temporarily classified last year
    • Mayor R.T. Rybak's city-owned cars were tracked at 41 locations
    • Star Tribune reporter was tracked at seven locations
As mentioned, the key driving force behind the embrace of these scanners has been a deluge of funding from the Obama administration.  

Administration officials have refused to specify how much grant money was given to local and state law enforcement agencies for license plate tracking devices, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimates $289M USD and $1.4B USD was funneled through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the purpose.  The DHS pools mirrored copies of the collected data at so-called "Fusion centers" which various federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies can access.

The ACLU was alarmed to find that only five states:
  • New Hampshire (banned)
  • Maine (restricted to monitoring critical infrastructure -- bridges, etc., limits storage)
  • Arkansas (limits storage)
  • New Jersey (state wide guidelines)
  • (Fifth state was unlisted)
... had laws on their books regulating the deployment of readers, use of readers, security provisions for the data, or limitations on how long it could be stored.

Police officer
Police officers state that transparency about plate scanning interferes with police activities. [Image Source: Keith Baker/WRAL]

The ACLU asked for information in 38 states, but received few replies.  Most police departments scoffed at its request for transparency and clarity, arguing transparency interferes with police activities.

II. New Suit Demands Data From States, Municipalities, and Feds

In response to those rejections, the ACLU has now filed [PDF] a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1966 (5 U.S.C. § 552) lawsuit.  That should reveal more information on how much money is being spent, where the readers are, and how they're being used, but will likely require an onerous fight in various jurisdictions to get the data.

The ACLU warns:

It’s not an exaggeration to say that in ten years there will be ALPRs just about everywhere, making detailed records of every driver’s every movement, and storing it for who knows how long. In some cases, we know that the worst-case scenario—vast databases with records of movements of massive numbers of people—is already happening.

A recent Supreme Court case ruled it illegal for police to plant tracking devices on citizens' cars.  However, ultimately federal, state, and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies have found that they can get almost the same information by using a combination of license plate scans and telephony metadata.  (Of course the Obama administration is also trying to more directly sneak around the GPS tracking ruling, according the ACLU.)

You are being tracked
The ACLU is demanding answers about the Orwellian tracking of law abiding citizens. 

The FOIA lawsuit comes as the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is reportedly planning a rollout of plate readers across all major federal highways, to fight the "war on drugs".  While all of the nation's past three presidents are admit former users of illegal drugs, The CATO institute estimates the government has spent $1T USD in tax money since 1971 [source] to imprison millions of Americans on non-violent drug offenses.  The government has in turn lost an estimated $2T USD in tax revenue from the war on drugs, which combined with the cost of enforcement totals almost a fifth ($3T USD) of the national debt [source].

No Spyn
Soon facial recognition may be added to the police state's bag of tricks.

Meanwhile the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has received over $1B USD (which of course is largely passed off to defense contractor special interests) to develop facial recognition systems.  By "scanning faces", the feds could in a decade or two have yet one more powerful dataset to track and potentially terrorize law abiding citizens, in addition to the seized telephone data and the license plate scans.

Sources: ACLU [1; PDF], [2], [3], Star Tribune



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It's legal.
By Motoman on 7/19/2013 4:09:25 PM , Rating: 5
Here's the fundamental problem with this complaint - there is nothing protecting an individual from having their picture taken (or a picture of their car...or their license plate) if you're in a public place - ore are visible from a public place.

Which is why it's not illegal to take a picture of topless celebrities on their boats out in the water with a huge camera lens from a public beach.

If you're in a public place, or can be seen from a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone and everyone can take your picture, video tape you, walk behind you with a mic recording your conversations, whatever. Public is public. The one and only way you can have an expectation of privacy is to not be in a public area.

So, the authorities aren't breaking any laws. Not anymore than an individual citizen would be by taking pictures of license plates and posting them to the internet.

What's troubling is the volume of this legal tracking that's being done, and that it's being done indiscriminately, and without any regulation as to how long the information can be stored for, or for what purpose, so on and so forth.

Note, though, that "troubling" doesn't mean "illegal." I think people are right to be concerned about this kind of surveillance...but if you want something to change, you're going to have to change the actual laws.




RE: It's legal.
By Tegeril on 7/19/2013 7:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
You were almost correct until "video tape you, walk behind you with a mic recording your conversations."

You can absolutely be fined for audio recordings of another in certain states, even in public places, if they do not consent. Non-audio recordings are different.


RE: It's legal.
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/19/2013 7:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between capturing stills, video or audio and distributing/publishing them.

You can capture photos, video, audio to your heart's content from a public location, but if you intend to distribute or publish that captured material in any way, you are required to obtain a signed release from the subjects or the subject's legal owner/guardian.


RE: It's legal.
By 1prophet on 7/20/2013 1:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
If that were true there would be no paparazzi.


RE: It's legal.
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/21/2013 4:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
You are missing the distinction between acquiring images to publishing them. That is an important distinction,

Smart paparazzi never publish images themselves. They only acquire them. Which is not illegal if they are in a public place.

They turn around and sell the images to someone else that has the nightmare of legally publishing them. Those are the folks that get sued on a regular basis - not the paparazzi.


RE: It's legal.
By BRB29 on 7/22/2013 12:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
If the picture is legally taken and everything is checked for legality then it can be published in newspapers or magazines. Photographers don't take pictures of people who are uncomfortable with it because they may get a bad rep. There are plenty of street photographers that will take a picture of someone in public and walk away even with that person asking them to delete the picture.

Minors have different laws so it's best to avoid them all together unless you have exclusive permission from guardian/parents. I would never publish/share/post/keep any pictures of any minor without a written agreement with the parents.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimk...

Paparazzi gets sued a lot for things like intruding personal property to take the picture. Sometimes, they take pictures with minors in there.


RE: It's legal.
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/22/2013 5:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
That is a healthy attitude for a photographer. Kudos.

Many paparazzi get a bad rep because they often ignore these ethics in the sake of getting a money shot (the difference between a paparazzi and a real photographer).


RE: It's legal.
By Motoman on 7/19/2013 8:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Link?


RE: It's legal.
By Just Tom on 7/21/2013 10:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
Here

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide

Long story short, it is illegal in many states to record conversations using hidden cameras or recording devices.


RE: It's legal.
By TSS on 7/20/2013 8:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's the fundamental problem with this complaint - there is nothing protecting an individual from having their picture taken (or a picture of their car...or their license plate) if you're in a public place - ore are visible from a public place.


That's not the problem with this complaint, i think that pretty much is the complaint. There is no way to protect ones self from this.

Except there is, you can cover up your licence plates. Just like celebrities can cover up their boobs on their boats so they don't get pictures taken of them. Except, covering up your licence plates *is* illegal.

Therefor it's criminalizing protecting your privacy. Now i'm not denying licence plates have their uses and are important, but that system was also invented in a time where they simply couldn't track licence plates en masse because that technology simply wasn't feasable at the time.

This is also what's scary about all of this. Slowly the people are losing the ability to protect themselves from the government. What, you think that 9mm handgun will protect you with a M1A1 abrams rolling down the street? Get real. True protection from the government comes from not allowing crap like this to occur. So when that tank does roll by your house it doesn't stop because you happened to park your car at a meeting of people the government doesn't agree with.


RE: It's legal.
By Piiman on 7/20/2013 9:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
"If you're in a public place, or can be seen from a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. Anyone and everyone can take your picture, video tape you, walk behind you with a mic recording your conversations, whatever. Public is public"

Taking my picture is one thing but taking it and then storing it in a database to be used to track my movements is another.


RE: It's legal.
By Motoman on 7/20/2013 11:14:34 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it isn't. Not legally speaking, anyway.


RE: It's legal.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2013 8:07:56 PM , Rating: 1
Well you know what Moto, fuck "legality".

If we the people decide we have a problem with something, legality can change. For the better or worst.

As technology changes, so must our laws occasionally. Maybe this is only quasi-legal because the capability to collate this much data by computer wasn't always possible?

I believe this practice, at it's foundation, is unconstitutional anyway. So does the ACLU. Which guess what? Makes it illegal.


RE: It's legal.
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/21/2013 4:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
Good points, but the ACLU is going to have to make the legal case to get this shot down if it is in fact unconstitutional.

They better have damn good lawyers that can read between the lines of the U.S. constitution.


RE: It's legal.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2013 6:14:52 PM , Rating: 4
The Government is basically saying "because we think there's no expected right of privacy in public, we can arbitrarily and indiscriminately collects everyone's personal locations, actions, and other data and store them for whatever purpose."

But this is the exact reason law enforcement is supposed to operate under principles like 'reasonable suspicion' and that whole Forth Amendment thing, right?

Monitoring criminals = police work
Monitoring everyone = police state


RE: It's legal.
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/22/2013 5:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
We all know where the concept of government came from, right bro?

It all started off as protection rackets in the dark ages. We like to think our society has come a long way from that, but step back and look at how governments in power operate. You see a lot of similarities between how a government operates and how those gang leaders in the dark ages offering protection to the villagers.

What would happen if the villagers got fed up and formed their own gang? It happens when a government (gang) pushes their citizens (villagers) too far. And it gets really messy, really fast (i.e. Syria).


RE: It's legal.
By jRaskell on 7/22/2013 12:56:32 PM , Rating: 1
Our government has been shitting on the Constitution for years, and the majority just don't care. The ACLU is fighting the good fight, but it's a lost cause.


RE: It's legal.
By Strunf on 7/22/2013 6:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
In France and pretty much all over Europe it's "illegal" to take the picture of someone on the street without their consent, you can however take the picture of a statue and unavoidable have someone else on it too, there's a legal difference between being the subject of a pictures and being part of the "background", journals and other "trash" media get fined all the time for publishing paparazzi pictures, the fines are quite small when compared to the sales value that's why they keep doing it.

I think in the states it's more or less the same thing or Google wouldn't go to GREAT extents to hide the face and car plates from the pictures they take for their street view.


RE: It's legal.
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/22/2013 5:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly the point I made earlier.

It is not illegal to take someone's picture in public without their consent - even in those places you mentioned.

It is illegal just about everywhere (not just in Europe) to publish or display that picture without the consent of everyone in that picture - even if they are 'background'. As well reasonable efforts must be shown to obscure information that can identify a person.

I can go just about anywhere in a public place and take pictures of whoever and whatever I want. However I absolutely cannot exhibit those pictures in public without those signed releases. If I do so, I run the risk of being successfully sued by the people in those pictures.

In your example it is the publishers of journals and trash media that is being sued -- not the photographers. Journals and media are forms of publication. So it becomes the responsibility of the publisher to make sure all the legal T's are crossed and I's are dotted. Some don't and those are the ones you see being sued.

And yes indeed, Google does have to do that. They are allowed to take all the pictures of your house as they want - even with you standing in the front yard yelling at them and giving them the finger. However they can't show it to everyone on Steet View without blurring your face and anything identifying you (though they would no doubt blur your "one-fingered salute" as well).


RE: It's legal.
By foolsgambit11 on 7/23/2013 2:36:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you want something to change, you're going to have to change the actual laws.
It sounds like that's what they want to do. Notice that they aren't trying to get a court ruling banning the practice; they're trying to get a court ruling forcing the disclosure of the extent of these programs and their cost. Their plan most likely is to use this information to conduct a legislative campaign (aka lobby) to restrict or completely eliminate these programs. I say good luck to them.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki