Privacy Advocates Take Law Enforcement To Task Over Handling Of License Plate Data
The panopticon grows taller every day, as motorists who try to learn what information is gathered by the automatic license plate readers face roadblock after roadblock, with three cases set to determine once and for all what can be seen.
Autoblog reports the advocacy groups, journalists and private citizens supporting the cases aim to help uncover how and what data is collected and used by police, while the police support keeping the electric eye solely on others under the premise that the data is part of ongoing investigations. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reporter Steve Orr, who filed a FOIA request with Monroe County officials about his own vehicle, disputes the reasoning:
What investigation is that? Most people in the database are not, and haven’t been associated with an investigation. There’s no criminal concern here… They’re saying, “OK, maybe there’s not an investigation now, but there could be one down the road”… What it says is that we’re all suspects in waiting.
Another case in Los Angeles calls out both the LAPD and Los Angeles Sheriffs Department for the same issue and the reasoning behind it. According to Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Jennifer Lynch, the data collected would be held for, at most, two days before being deleted, as it wouldn’t be necessary to hold onto it for longer during a stolen vehicle investigation.
However, most law enforcement agencies can hold onto plate data for two to five years, if not indefinitely. Further, the data could be pooled with other agencies, eventually coalescing into a picture of a given driver’s personal life as tracked by the plate readers. Without public oversight in how the data — obtained from a public piece of identification — is used, it would become “too easy for the government to overreach,” per the American Civil Liberties Union.
Comments
Join the conversation
"Further, the data could be pooled with other agencies, eventually coalescing into a picture of a given driver’s personal life as tracked by the plate readers." The interaction between jurisdictions is a screwy, inconsistent thing. Years ago, I took a job in Connecticut and when I moved there, I applied for a carry permit. I had to fill out the standard paperwork and pass a background check, of course. But here's what bothered me. I was asking the state of Connecticut to trust me with carrying a loaded pistol in public, and they wanted to be sure that I wasn't a threat to anyone. Okay, fine, no problem. I told them, "but I've had a Pennsylvania carry permit for five years. They think I'm okay. Why do I need to pass YOUR background check? Isn't the good word of the state of Pennsylvania enough for you?" Essentially they said, "well, YOU say you're good to go, and PENNSYLVANIA says you're good to go, but WE need to make sure for ourselves." But something tells me that if some government agency in PA contacted some government agency in CT and told them I was a criminal of some sort, they'd take PA's good word at face value on that one, without any independent verification. Professional courtesy? Who knows. It does make you wonder, though. What good are jurisdictional limits if police agencies work together as a matter of course, but only if it benefits them?
Our forefathers (US) knew that controls and checks had to be put in place AND followed when equals are ruling over equals. Unfortunately, alot of this is trampled upon in the name of "safety". The Fear Machine was created to facilitate all of this. And it works well as the sheeple simply accept what is fed to them via the PictureBox/TruthBox. "It shows me pretty pictures with pretty people. It must be true."