Aa
Policing advocates defend use of high-tech license plate readers
(CNN) -- David Roberts remembers his days as a Denver police cadet in 1970: It was roll call, just like in the old TV dramas, and every cop was handed a "hot sheet" of vehicles totaling 10 pages, with license plate numbers printed in six columns.
It was a dizzying list, all single spaced. Every time Roberts saw a suspicious vehicle, he thumbed through the legal-size pages, seeing whether the car was stolen or wanted for use in a crime or impoundment for unpaid parking tickets.
"You can imagine how many times you would do that in a shift," said Roberts, who's now a senior program manager for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Each check, he said, amounted to "a fishing expedition."
Police are tracking where you drive
That time-consuming process is now increasingly being replaced by technology called automated license plate readers. It's a system of high-speed cameras mounted on police or meter-maid vehicles that photograph license plates and run the numbers automatically against the 21st century version of a hot sheet, a database.
The nationwide emergence of this policing tool was highlighted this week in a report that portrayed the digital-era invention as shades of another Big Brother intrusion into American privacy, largely because there are no laws governing how long police can keep the data on vehicles, including those of innocent motorists, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
ACLU raises privacy concerns
But some law enforcement officials and advocates assert there's no need for state laws.
Groups such as the IACP encourage agencies to adopt policies to ensure the data is used for authorized purposes, with regular audits. There's been no major scandal of abuse since a study by Roberts found almost half of the largest police departments were using the technology in 2007.
The ACLU, however, calls the technology "a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance" of Americans and advocates legislation to ensure privacy.
"I understand the position they're taking on this," Roberts said of the ACLU. "I think agencies are very careful on how they use the data. Every agency I talk to and all the guidance we provide is to make sure that this is for official use only.
"If agencies have specific policies and articulate those policies and enforce them, it would obviate the need for legislation that would restrict this powerful investigative tool," Roberts said.
Moreover, other law officials argue, maybe license plate data from 10, 20 or 25 years ago could be used to track down a suspicious vehicle and solve a cold case.
"My first question is why," said Tyler Izen, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the bargaining unit for 9,900 sworn officers ranked lieutenant and below. "And if the answer is because we have statute of limitations on crimes, well, there's no statute of limitation on murder.
"I would ask the ACLU if we could solve a family's homicide from 20 years ago, why would you want it destroyed?" he added, referring to the data. "Really what they're saying is they don't trust society to use that data reasonably, and I say we make sure we use it reasonably. I don't want to violate the Constitution."
Izen agrees that the data shouldn't be made available for purposes outside of law enforcement.
"I hear everyone's discussion about the right to privacy," Izen said. "If I'm telling my wife I'm somewhere, I certainly don't need somebody saying they saw my car somewhere else.
"I don't want a tabloid having access to the data telling me where every celebrity is located. That's not what we do," Izen continued.
That issue, however, did arise in Minnesota, according to the ACLU.
In 2012, the StarTribune newspaper in Minneapolis tracked the movement of the Mayor R.T. Rybak's car 41 times at license police readers in the prior year. The newspaper put the information on a map and gathered the data through public records requests.
As a result of that report, the mayor directed the police chief to recommend a new policy on data retention, the ACLU said.
The power of the technology seems commanding: A police cruiser can be mounted with cameras to check vehicles that are parked, in front of the patrol car or traveling in the opposite direction on the other side or the road.
Once the software confirms a match between a passing vehicle and the hot list, it emits a visual and audio alert on the patrol car's computer.
An officer, however, must double check the alert because sometimes the optical character reader software will misread a plate's "8" as a "B" or a "Z" as a "7," Roberts said.
A 2010 study by George Mason University found "there is little question that license plate readers are more efficient than previous (and, in many cases, current) police practices for checking license plates" such as the "look-out lists."
"License plate readers can continuously scan hundreds of plates in minutes without the officer paying attention to vehicles passing by or taking up radio airtime that might be used for more pressing communications. Because of these efficiencies, LPR may contribute not only to reduced discrimination in traffic stops, but also to reduced distractions and accidents while driving," the study said.
But the report raised questions on their effectiveness to deter crime -- especially when each license plate reader can cost $20,000 to $25,000.
"The most accurate license plate readers might be used by law enforcement officials in ways that have no specific or general deterrent, preventative, or detection effect whatsoever," the study said.
The question of deterrence was also raised by the Police Executive Research Forum and Mesa, Arizona, Police Department in a 2011 study that found the technology results in more arrests for car theft.
"We believe our results demonstrate that LPR technology holds a limited amount of promise for law enforcement. Some of the benefits include increasing the number of plates that the police can scan, increasing the number of 'hits' for vehicle theft and 'hits' for stolen plates, increasing the number of arrests for stolen cars, and increasing the number of recoveries involving occupied stolen vehicles," the forum study said.
"However, we did not find evidence that the LPR reduced actual vehicle theft rates for our targeted areas," the report concluded.
But deterrence isn't the principle objective of the technology, Roberts contends.
"Its principle objective is to identify vehicles that are wanted," Roberts added.
For the technology to become a deterrent might take time, Izen said.
"The short answer is, I don't think it does yet, but it may soon -- when we realize how much more easy it is to solve crimes," Izen said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/license-plate-readers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
It was a dizzying list, all single spaced. Every time Roberts saw a suspicious vehicle, he thumbed through the legal-size pages, seeing whether the car was stolen or wanted for use in a crime or impoundment for unpaid parking tickets.
"You can imagine how many times you would do that in a shift," said Roberts, who's now a senior program manager for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Each check, he said, amounted to "a fishing expedition."
Police are tracking where you drive
That time-consuming process is now increasingly being replaced by technology called automated license plate readers. It's a system of high-speed cameras mounted on police or meter-maid vehicles that photograph license plates and run the numbers automatically against the 21st century version of a hot sheet, a database.
The nationwide emergence of this policing tool was highlighted this week in a report that portrayed the digital-era invention as shades of another Big Brother intrusion into American privacy, largely because there are no laws governing how long police can keep the data on vehicles, including those of innocent motorists, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
ACLU raises privacy concerns
But some law enforcement officials and advocates assert there's no need for state laws.
Groups such as the IACP encourage agencies to adopt policies to ensure the data is used for authorized purposes, with regular audits. There's been no major scandal of abuse since a study by Roberts found almost half of the largest police departments were using the technology in 2007.
The ACLU, however, calls the technology "a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance" of Americans and advocates legislation to ensure privacy.
"I understand the position they're taking on this," Roberts said of the ACLU. "I think agencies are very careful on how they use the data. Every agency I talk to and all the guidance we provide is to make sure that this is for official use only.
"If agencies have specific policies and articulate those policies and enforce them, it would obviate the need for legislation that would restrict this powerful investigative tool," Roberts said.
Moreover, other law officials argue, maybe license plate data from 10, 20 or 25 years ago could be used to track down a suspicious vehicle and solve a cold case.
"My first question is why," said Tyler Izen, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the bargaining unit for 9,900 sworn officers ranked lieutenant and below. "And if the answer is because we have statute of limitations on crimes, well, there's no statute of limitation on murder.
"I would ask the ACLU if we could solve a family's homicide from 20 years ago, why would you want it destroyed?" he added, referring to the data. "Really what they're saying is they don't trust society to use that data reasonably, and I say we make sure we use it reasonably. I don't want to violate the Constitution."
Izen agrees that the data shouldn't be made available for purposes outside of law enforcement.
"I hear everyone's discussion about the right to privacy," Izen said. "If I'm telling my wife I'm somewhere, I certainly don't need somebody saying they saw my car somewhere else.
"I don't want a tabloid having access to the data telling me where every celebrity is located. That's not what we do," Izen continued.
That issue, however, did arise in Minnesota, according to the ACLU.
In 2012, the StarTribune newspaper in Minneapolis tracked the movement of the Mayor R.T. Rybak's car 41 times at license police readers in the prior year. The newspaper put the information on a map and gathered the data through public records requests.
As a result of that report, the mayor directed the police chief to recommend a new policy on data retention, the ACLU said.
The power of the technology seems commanding: A police cruiser can be mounted with cameras to check vehicles that are parked, in front of the patrol car or traveling in the opposite direction on the other side or the road.
Once the software confirms a match between a passing vehicle and the hot list, it emits a visual and audio alert on the patrol car's computer.
An officer, however, must double check the alert because sometimes the optical character reader software will misread a plate's "8" as a "B" or a "Z" as a "7," Roberts said.
A 2010 study by George Mason University found "there is little question that license plate readers are more efficient than previous (and, in many cases, current) police practices for checking license plates" such as the "look-out lists."
"License plate readers can continuously scan hundreds of plates in minutes without the officer paying attention to vehicles passing by or taking up radio airtime that might be used for more pressing communications. Because of these efficiencies, LPR may contribute not only to reduced discrimination in traffic stops, but also to reduced distractions and accidents while driving," the study said.
But the report raised questions on their effectiveness to deter crime -- especially when each license plate reader can cost $20,000 to $25,000.
"The most accurate license plate readers might be used by law enforcement officials in ways that have no specific or general deterrent, preventative, or detection effect whatsoever," the study said.
The question of deterrence was also raised by the Police Executive Research Forum and Mesa, Arizona, Police Department in a 2011 study that found the technology results in more arrests for car theft.
"We believe our results demonstrate that LPR technology holds a limited amount of promise for law enforcement. Some of the benefits include increasing the number of plates that the police can scan, increasing the number of 'hits' for vehicle theft and 'hits' for stolen plates, increasing the number of arrests for stolen cars, and increasing the number of recoveries involving occupied stolen vehicles," the forum study said.
"However, we did not find evidence that the LPR reduced actual vehicle theft rates for our targeted areas," the report concluded.
But deterrence isn't the principle objective of the technology, Roberts contends.
"Its principle objective is to identify vehicles that are wanted," Roberts added.
For the technology to become a deterrent might take time, Izen said.
"The short answer is, I don't think it does yet, but it may soon -- when we realize how much more easy it is to solve crimes," Izen said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/license-plate-readers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
White House opposes amendment to curb NSA spying
The White House said the amendment will "hastily dismantle" counterterrorism tools
By John Ribeiro | Published: 06:33, 24 July 2013
Email to a friend Print this article RSS feed
The White House is opposed to an amendment to a defense spending bill that would limit spending on mass surveillance by the National Security Agency.
The amendment proposed by Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, would limit spending only to orders by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that collect phone and other data only of a person who is the subject of an investigation.
Former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, disclosed through newspaper reports in June that the NSA was collecting phone metadata from Verizon customers in the U.S. as part of its surveillance which was said to include data collected from Internet companies as well.
The authorization to the NSA to collect phone metadata in bulk was last week renewed by the FISC court. The Department of Justice has said that it has to retain the bulk data required by its counterterrorism tools, as it need not be retained by telecommunications service providers.
The administration of President Barack Obama said Tuesday that it opposes "the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community's counterterrorism tools." "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process," it added.
In line with his promise in June to have a debate on the issues thrown up by the disclosures of NSA surveillance, Obama has taken several steps including his meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and disclosures by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to a statement by the White House press secretary.
The amendment proposed by Amash would limit the collection of telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls to that of the person under investigation.
Google, Microsoft and other Internet companies have sought clearance from the secret FISC court to disclose aggregate numbers of requests for customer data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related rules. The companies were said to have provided to the NSA access in real-time to content on their servers under a NSA program called Prism, which the companies have denied.
Login Login | Register Follow us on Twitter
Get Widget Newsletter Subscribe to Techworld newsletters
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice asked the FISC court for an extension of the time to respond to Microsoft and Google's motions before the FISC court for disclosure of aggregate data on FISA requests, stating that they needed additional time to negotiate with the two companies.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on the amendment on Wednesday. Rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have described the Amash amendment as an important step in curbing domestic surveillance by the NSA. The White House has urged the House "to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation."
John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro***@****
The White House said the amendment will "hastily dismantle" counterterrorism tools
By John Ribeiro | Published: 06:33, 24 July 2013
Email to a friend Print this article RSS feed
The White House is opposed to an amendment to a defense spending bill that would limit spending on mass surveillance by the National Security Agency.
The amendment proposed by Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, would limit spending only to orders by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that collect phone and other data only of a person who is the subject of an investigation.
Former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, disclosed through newspaper reports in June that the NSA was collecting phone metadata from Verizon customers in the U.S. as part of its surveillance which was said to include data collected from Internet companies as well.
The authorization to the NSA to collect phone metadata in bulk was last week renewed by the FISC court. The Department of Justice has said that it has to retain the bulk data required by its counterterrorism tools, as it need not be retained by telecommunications service providers.
The administration of President Barack Obama said Tuesday that it opposes "the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community's counterterrorism tools." "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process," it added.
In line with his promise in June to have a debate on the issues thrown up by the disclosures of NSA surveillance, Obama has taken several steps including his meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and disclosures by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to a statement by the White House press secretary.
The amendment proposed by Amash would limit the collection of telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls to that of the person under investigation.
Google, Microsoft and other Internet companies have sought clearance from the secret FISC court to disclose aggregate numbers of requests for customer data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related rules. The companies were said to have provided to the NSA access in real-time to content on their servers under a NSA program called Prism, which the companies have denied.
Login Login | Register Follow us on Twitter
Get Widget Newsletter Subscribe to Techworld newsletters
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice asked the FISC court for an extension of the time to respond to Microsoft and Google's motions before the FISC court for disclosure of aggregate data on FISA requests, stating that they needed additional time to negotiate with the two companies.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on the amendment on Wednesday. Rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have described the Amash amendment as an important step in curbing domestic surveillance by the NSA. The White House has urged the House "to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation."
John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro***@****
I totally agree that the attempt to overturn Roe v Wade is a classic example of rights being taken away. Gun laws are examples of rights being taken away...
Though I don't want to be repetitive, it's like I said "every time a risk is removed, so are some rights". When we live life without risk, we live it without rights.
Though I don't want to be repetitive, it's like I said "every time a risk is removed, so are some rights". When we live life without risk, we live it without rights.
Part of me is okay with the thought of surveillance equipment being nearly everywhere. I am not out and about causing anyone grief so I understand the opinion of this not being a big deal.
But like some of the others, I feel as if this is a systematic erosion of our rights or at least throws the door open for those rights to be taken away. I think some in society think they know what is better for the rest of us, and I don't like the idea that the potential for me living my life the way I see fit, could be taken away. (Especially when they think they are doing this "for my best interest.") I don't think that anyone knows me better than me, or my family. If I were to physically or mentally fall to pieces, I would prefer that my trusted family call the shots and not some nerd in DC. They don't know my best interest, and I don't think they give a damned.
But like some of the others, I feel as if this is a systematic erosion of our rights or at least throws the door open for those rights to be taken away. I think some in society think they know what is better for the rest of us, and I don't like the idea that the potential for me living my life the way I see fit, could be taken away. (Especially when they think they are doing this "for my best interest.") I don't think that anyone knows me better than me, or my family. If I were to physically or mentally fall to pieces, I would prefer that my trusted family call the shots and not some nerd in DC. They don't know my best interest, and I don't think they give a damned.
“The danger might not be so great, right now; to me, it's more about what can happen in the future, if we don't try to stop this now.”
Exactly. This is why so many of us where so upset about The Gun Control Laws. It wasn’t so much that they would serve little to no purpose, it was the fear of opening the door for Future Regulations.
One example is Roe vs. Wade. What started out as Women’s right to Abortion has grew into something that would have been considered fantasy from “Prophets of Doom” at the time. As I’ve stated before, I doubt the Supreme Court Justices, never in their wildest dreams, thought that one day, we would be fighting over a Woman’s Right to Late Term Abortions, Tax Payers Dollars used to Fund Abortions, Women having multiple Abortions because they use it as a form of Birth Control, etc.
This wasn’t posted to High Jack the Thread into a Pro-Choice/Pro-Life War. I used it for an example of why we are reluctant to open doors.
Who’s to say that one day, the information gathered wouldn’t become Public Record? Did you know, here (not sure about all states but in Louisiana) anyone can pull your Arrest Record and Minutes of the Court? That’s right, anyone!
Exactly. This is why so many of us where so upset about The Gun Control Laws. It wasn’t so much that they would serve little to no purpose, it was the fear of opening the door for Future Regulations.
One example is Roe vs. Wade. What started out as Women’s right to Abortion has grew into something that would have been considered fantasy from “Prophets of Doom” at the time. As I’ve stated before, I doubt the Supreme Court Justices, never in their wildest dreams, thought that one day, we would be fighting over a Woman’s Right to Late Term Abortions, Tax Payers Dollars used to Fund Abortions, Women having multiple Abortions because they use it as a form of Birth Control, etc.
This wasn’t posted to High Jack the Thread into a Pro-Choice/Pro-Life War. I used it for an example of why we are reluctant to open doors.
Who’s to say that one day, the information gathered wouldn’t become Public Record? Did you know, here (not sure about all states but in Louisiana) anyone can pull your Arrest Record and Minutes of the Court? That’s right, anyone!
I apologize for initially misinterpreting your comment. Thanks to SM for pointing that out to me.
No,no,no!!!!!!
I did not think it was redundant at all! Oye, I wanted to copy the whole thing and paste it again then say something inane like "right on"!
But I feared *I * would be redundant!!
I did not think it was redundant at all! Oye, I wanted to copy the whole thing and paste it again then say something inane like "right on"!
But I feared *I * would be redundant!!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
