4 ms·

The other problem is that state laws aren't keeping up with law enforcement technology. FOIA-similar laws in Minnesota meant that every ALPR-captured license pl

The other problem is that state laws aren't keeping up with law enforcement technology. FOIA-similar laws in Minnesota meant that every ALPR-captured license plate was public information, which I requested to prove a point. I got back 2.1 million license plates (+ timestamp and coordinates) on a USB stick. Without strong policies and laws, this data is ripe for abuse -- domestic abuse victims and stalking where someone eats, visits, and sleeps, or tracking regular routes of hazmat or cash trucks, etc. https://tonywebster.com/2012/12/minneapolis-police-license-plate-data/ https://tonywebster.com/2012/12/minneapolis-police-license-p...

nullc 13y ago
Yea, great so you complain about that and then they solve just that narrow case. Doing so reduces some fringe harassment risks, but actually makes the power inversion worse since then only a privileged minority has access to the data. In practice the stalking/harassment stuff isn't actually happening with any great frequency: The mentally ill people who would do this are generally not competent enough to go on a big data data mining exercise. Complaining about that just creates an excuse to remove access to the public to data they're paying to create while leaving access to it to authorities and commercial interests who might use it against them.
- tonywebster 13y ago
  Despite being in public -- and on public streets -- I think anytime the government is tracking where I go, it should require probable cause and a judge's signature. I believe ALPR circumvents the judicial system. I use my cellphone in public, but it's obvious that the government shouldn't be able to automatically log when and where I placed a call. I use my credit card in public, but the government shouldn't be able to automatically log every penny going into or out of my bank account. I use my car in public too, and I don't think the government should track everywhere I drive. I don't think there's an acceptable amount of harassment that's tolerable. If the technology enables it to happen, it's worth challenging. There are three issues for me with ALPR: (1) limiting the scope of persons who have access to the data, (2) ensuring that law enforcement agencies have strong (ab)use and access policies with checks and balances, and (3) ensuring that logs of where innocent individuals drive is never stored. I think it's easier to progressively win a fight rather than going guns-blazing to a large issue that people don't understand. By first building the notion that 'yeah, this technology is actually somewhat scary' it's much easier to win a fight arguing that the police shouldn't be storing and accessing the data either. In my situation in Minnesota, the public finding out about the police releasing 2.1 million license plate tracking points to the public was enough pressure to get the state to make the data non-public and to have police departments voluntarily create more restrictive policies. It was also enough to get a fabulous bill passed through the state House that prohibited police from storing any data on non-hit (non-wanted) vehicles. Unfortunately, it didn't get to the Senate floor in time before the session ended, but I was shocked at the number of legislators who spoke out against ALPR data storage. They weren't necessarily anti-ALPR (and honestly I'm not vehemently anti-ALPR either), but the prospect of storage is wildly unpopular among non-police communities. There's another issue all together, which is privately owned and operated ALPR systems -- typically used by vehicle repossessors but it was also uncovered this week that a defense contractor had also been on the receiving end of Minneapolis Police ALPR data, which is somewhat unnerving.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    If you're walking around in public, the government has the right to follow you around. In fact, everyone has the right to follow you around. Having cameras and drones around just means they got better at doing it.
    - damarquis 13y ago
      Of course anyone can follow you in public, the alternative would be impossible to enforce. The problem is that the cost of getting that data could be made unacceptably low. For example, I think most people would object having their government uploaded their coordinates to a public website. The interesting question is what is the right tradeoff between transparency and cost.
    - talmand 13y ago
      I believe there is a limit to this. You can't continuously follow someone around making notes on everything they do because at some point you're likely to trigger some type of local harassment or stalking laws. Of which there is a legal recourse to handle this. What this describes goes beyond that because there's apparently no legal recourse to deal with it. Well, I suppose that may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
- damarquis 13y ago
  You are comfortable relying on stalkers not being persistent enough to search a list, save some metadata, and use google maps?
JosephHatfield 13y ago
The ACLU report appears to claim that Minnesota is actually one of the few states that keep recording plate data for a maximum of 48 hours. Was that a recent result of this disclosure? See the callout on the map at http://www.aclu.org/alpr http://www.aclu.org/alpr
- tonywebster 13y ago
  There is no state law limiting retention to 48 hours. The Minnesota State Patrol -- one single statewide agency -- has voluntarily chosen to limit to 48 hours. Any local police department or county sheriff's department can retain for whatever they want under state law. Or the State Patrol could be lying.
JonSkeptic 13y ago
Thank so much! I wish I could up-vote this comment more, you've given me so many wonderful ideas =D

nullc 13y ago

Yea, great so you complain about that and then they solve just that narrow case. Doing so reduces some fringe harassment risks, but actually makes the power inversion worse since then only a privileged minority has access to the data. In practice the stalking/harassment stuff isn't actually happening with any great frequency: The mentally ill people who would do this are generally not competent enough to go on a big data data mining exercise. Complaining about that just creates an excuse to remove access to the public to data they're paying to create while leaving access to it to authorities and commercial interests who might use it against them.

tonywebster 13y ago
Despite being in public -- and on public streets -- I think anytime the government is tracking where I go, it should require probable cause and a judge's signature. I believe ALPR circumvents the judicial system. I use my cellphone in public, but it's obvious that the government shouldn't be able to automatically log when and where I placed a call. I use my credit card in public, but the government shouldn't be able to automatically log every penny going into or out of my bank account. I use my car in public too, and I don't think the government should track everywhere I drive. I don't think there's an acceptable amount of harassment that's tolerable. If the technology enables it to happen, it's worth challenging. There are three issues for me with ALPR: (1) limiting the scope of persons who have access to the data, (2) ensuring that law enforcement agencies have strong (ab)use and access policies with checks and balances, and (3) ensuring that logs of where innocent individuals drive is never stored. I think it's easier to progressively win a fight rather than going guns-blazing to a large issue that people don't understand. By first building the notion that 'yeah, this technology is actually somewhat scary' it's much easier to win a fight arguing that the police shouldn't be storing and accessing the data either. In my situation in Minnesota, the public finding out about the police releasing 2.1 million license plate tracking points to the public was enough pressure to get the state to make the data non-public and to have police departments voluntarily create more restrictive policies. It was also enough to get a fabulous bill passed through the state House that prohibited police from storing any data on non-hit (non-wanted) vehicles. Unfortunately, it didn't get to the Senate floor in time before the session ended, but I was shocked at the number of legislators who spoke out against ALPR data storage. They weren't necessarily anti-ALPR (and honestly I'm not vehemently anti-ALPR either), but the prospect of storage is wildly unpopular among non-police communities. There's another issue all together, which is privately owned and operated ALPR systems -- typically used by vehicle repossessors but it was also uncovered this week that a defense contractor had also been on the receiving end of Minneapolis Police ALPR data, which is somewhat unnerving.
- chrischen 13y ago
  If you're walking around in public, the government has the right to follow you around. In fact, everyone has the right to follow you around. Having cameras and drones around just means they got better at doing it.
  - damarquis 13y ago
    Of course anyone can follow you in public, the alternative would be impossible to enforce. The problem is that the cost of getting that data could be made unacceptably low. For example, I think most people would object having their government uploaded their coordinates to a public website. The interesting question is what is the right tradeoff between transparency and cost.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I believe there is a limit to this. You can't continuously follow someone around making notes on everything they do because at some point you're likely to trigger some type of local harassment or stalking laws. Of which there is a legal recourse to handle this. What this describes goes beyond that because there's apparently no legal recourse to deal with it. Well, I suppose that may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
damarquis 13y ago
You are comfortable relying on stalkers not being persistent enough to search a list, save some metadata, and use google maps?

JosephHatfield 13y ago

The ACLU report appears to claim that Minnesota is actually one of the few states that keep recording plate data for a maximum of 48 hours. Was that a recent result of this disclosure? See the callout on the map at http://www.aclu.org/alpr http://www.aclu.org/alpr

tonywebster 13y ago
There is no state law limiting retention to 48 hours. The Minnesota State Patrol -- one single statewide agency -- has voluntarily chosen to limit to 48 hours. Any local police department or county sheriff's department can retain for whatever they want under state law. Or the State Patrol could be lying.

JonSkeptic 13y ago

Thank so much! I wish I could up-vote this comment more, you've given me so many wonderful ideas =D