MassPrivateIMore and more when it comes to monitoring the public, capability is driving policy. The limits of law enforcement surveillance are being determined by what is technologically possible, not what is wise or even lawful. And it’s not uncommon for the police to use a new technology in secret for as long as they can, and then allow the courts to sort out legality once the issue finally comes before them.
It has never been so cheap and so easy for our law enforcement agencies to access and record the details of our daily lives. Consider automatic license plate readers (ALPR): This seemingly innocuous technology snaps photos of passing cars’ license plates and stamps them with the location, date, and time. While these scanners were once limited to uncontroversial purposes such as identifying stolen vehicles, increasingly the police save the photos for months or even years—even though virtually all of people whose movements are being recorded are completely innocent, and even though travel patterns can reveal sensitive details of our lives.
License plate readers are just one example of a mass surveillance technology that is spreading quickly. Surveillance cameras have become all-too-common in America’s large cities , but they may be eclipsed when more powerful video cameras are mounted on unmanned drones with the capacity to stay airborne for long stretches of time. The ARGUS-IS is a camera that can take high-resolution video of an area 15 square miles.
ALPR FUNDING IS BEING PROVIDED BY DHS.
With millions of plates being scanned and often stored in databases across the country, the growing use of the readers has some civil libertarians and privacy proponents worried about potential abuse, such as tracking a spouse or ex-lover or even tracking the movements of a political opponent.
There are also questions about how effective the devices are and worries about the lack of data retention policies by the agencies using license plate readers — a concern that at least one Michigan lawmaker wants to address through proposed legislation to regulate the devices and limit the amount of time collected data can be kept.
“We understand that these are tools that make it easier for law enforcement to do their work,” said Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. “But these technologies are advancing very, very quickly and our laws are not keeping up with the collateral damage of information they gather on everyday citizens.”
Weisberg said the ACLU is concerned about many technological advances that collect information, such as the readers, which could track a vehicle’s movements across the state or country. She said if a law enforcement agency is going to adopt a high-tech device in its crime-fighting arsenal, it needs parameters on how it’s used.
“Make sure there are very robust policies around making sure all the protections are in place,” Weisberg said.
Elsey, who works traffic enforcement, admits “it’s exciting” when the computer indicates he may have a hit on a possible hot vehicle, such as one that is listed as stolen.
Sometimes it’s a misread, such as a similar license plate number that’s wanted but turns out it’s from the wrong state. A handful of times in the last year, a hit turned out to be fruitful — a woman wanted on a fraud warrant, a stolen license plate and two stolen vehicles.
“What do we do with this data? How long do we keep it? If there is no sense of criminal activity, at what point should we destroy that information?” Singh asked. “For me, it was live up to the constitutional right of privacy that we have in this country” State Rep. Sam Singh said.
Police don’t want to stop spying on citizens:
“We believe that of all the data the police or government collects, this is the least innocuous of it,” said Robert Stevenson, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. “All we are collecting are numbers and letters.”
And that cell phone in your pocket? The police can get all of your location history very easily—without a warrant. In this case it’s not the government collecting everyone’s data, but cell phone service providers, who keep it for years. Why are they doing that? Because they can. Should they be doing that? No.
So when you think about dragnet surveillance, you should think about the NSA. But you should alsoworry about what your local police are doing with the data they collect about you.
One piece of good news is that some powerful members of the law enforcement community are publicly stating that surveillance capabilities should not drive policy. At last week’s conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey reflected on the rapid development of technology and remarked, “We have to remind ourselves—just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do it.”
Law enforcement agencies should not attempt to conceal the use of technologies of mass surveillance. These tools, which by definition involve the collection of data overwhelmingly of innocent people, should be public because such dragnet surveillance programs implicate serious privacy concerns. We and our elected representatives have a crucial role to play in determining which uses are appropriate and which ones cross the line. Not only our country as a whole, but also the police, will be better off in the long run if we have an open debate about what today’s technology can do, versus what it should do.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/capability-driving-policy-not-just-nsa-also-police
http://www.freep.com/article/20131101/NEWS05/311010022/License-plate-readers-privacy-police#!
http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2013/11/surveillance-capability-is-driving.html
1984 Big Brotha!!
. . .