4 ms·

IANAL. Also I haven't read Virginia's code of law. However, in most american states, "obtained legally" != "legal to archive" != "legal to look at whenever you

IANAL. Also I haven't read Virginia's code of law. However, in most american states, "obtained legally" != "legal to archive" != "legal to look at whenever you want" != "legal to share" != "legal to use for any purpose other than that which it was originally obtained for". Which means, while the gathering of the data may have been done legally, the archival and preservation of the data beyond their original purpose may be itself illegal, let alone sharing it, looking at it for reasons unrelated to the original cause, and using it for other purposes.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
Ah! A very good point. Does anyone else know more about this than, apparently, I do? Edit: After a bit of Googling, it looks like this may be OK under Virginia Law. In short, it appears that the governing law is the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, which provides an exception to retention and sharing restrictions for "criminal intelligence information." Here is a somewhat off-topic but informative opinion from the Virginia AG about retention and sharing of license plate reader information. http://www.vachiefs.org/images/uploads/docs/AG_Opinion_LPR.pdf http://www.vachiefs.org/images/uploads/docs/AG_Opinion_LPR.p...
- DaFranker 12y ago
  Regarding the edit: Yes, but... (On the topic of "passive", always-on License Plate Reader data collection that is archived without looking at it "in case it's useful later"): > On these facts I conclude that the need for such data has not been "clearly established in advance," so as to conform to the applicable principle of information practice. [12] Its future value to any investigation of criminal activity is wholly speculative. Therefore, with no exemption applicable to it, the collection of LPR data in the passive manner does not comport with the Data Act's strictures and prohibitions, and may not lawfully be done. [13] To absorb this back into the whole phone records thing, here's the keypoints I gather from that: 1. Need to target specific data that is as constrained as possible given prior knowledge. E.g. If you already know someone spoke on the phone about a crime at X date and never spoke of it at any other date, you are only allowed to obtain and use the records of that date. 2. Need to be able to show reasonable belief _before collection_ that the collected data will be useful for an investigation and/or for intelligence on criminal activity. Knowing that a criminal uses a phone is not sufficient cause to collect phone records - it must be demonstrable before collection that those particular phone records might contain information useful for identifying criminal activity or for ongoing investigations. 3. Data that is mass-collected for purposes of finding a specific information (e.g. searching for a license plate by processing every car that passes through X intersection) may be kept and shared only until the target information is located and the objectives met. 4. Every data collection must have a specific purpose and clear boundaries. Collecting records "to find people who issue death threats"? NOT OKAY. Collecting records "to find this particular issuance of a death threat"? OKAY. In other, techier words, there must be a deliverable. If the goal of a data collection is open-ended, or could take decades, then you must have a specific warrant associated to that data collection, and the data must be discarded once the warrant expires and/or the investigation concludes. This is pretty much my reading of it given cursory scanning of an abstract of the GDCDPA, prior knowledge on legal interpretations for "criminal intelligence information" (an extremely important phrase), and the A.G. advisory linked in parent.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    I think this is all correct. But on my admittedly cursory reading of the Wired article, I didn't see any clear indication that the police departments involved have violated any of these restrictions. Of course, this is mostly for lack of detail. There are lots of areas where a violation could have occurred.
    - jeangenie 12y ago
      Talk to someone at the ACLU about ALPRs. There are currently no restrictions or policies around their usage or data retention or sharing. We as citizens have absolutely no way of knowing if these are being used in ways we don't approve of. It's a problem.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 12y ago
I'm not so sure about that. It's not unusual to hear of cases being solved through matches with a fingerprint or DNA database (obviously problematic for civil liberties), and I don't think there's a bright-line standard for sharing of legally obtained evidence. I would like it if there was, but are you sure that you're not projecting your view of how things should work onto how they actually do? Can you offer some support for your claim?
- DaFranker 12y ago
  My claim is that the above terms and concepts, in a legal courtroom, are not automatically equal, and a judge may or may not rule completely differently on a case whenever any one of those factors change. Notice, if you read correctly, that I didn't make any particular judgment as to whether or not I think it's legal or not, or whether I think it should be legal or not. My intent was simply in pointing out that the commenter's assumptions and logical deductions were unsound as far as a judge looking at a court case might be concerned.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Reading correctly, the commenter you replied to posed a question rather than stating any assumptions. You said 'in most american states, "obtained legally" != "legal to archive" != "legal to look at whenever you want" != "legal to share" != "legal to use for any purpose other than that which it was originally obtained for".' So you seem to be claiming that these are distinct legal categories which affect the admissibility of evidence at trial. I don't think this is true; as far as I am aware, prosecutors and police can freely share information collected in different cases as long as that evidence is all disclosed to the defendant prior to trial (and early enough for the defense to prepare or seek a continuance etc.). For example, it's legal (per the Supreme Court) to take DNA swabs from arrestees without a warrant even if no charges are brought, and all such DNA evidence is by default loaded into a national database known as CODIS. Your DNA data, according to a majority of the Supreme Court can legally be archived, looked at whenever law enforcement wants, shared, and used for other purposes than that which it was originally obtained for. http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/dnadatabases.html http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/dnadatabases.html So again I ask, do you have something to back up your claim about things being different in 'most american states' or were you just saying you didn't think it worked that way?

pdabbadabba 12y ago

Ah! A very good point. Does anyone else know more about this than, apparently, I do? Edit: After a bit of Googling, it looks like this may be OK under Virginia Law. In short, it appears that the governing law is the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, which provides an exception to retention and sharing restrictions for "criminal intelligence information." Here is a somewhat off-topic but informative opinion from the Virginia AG about retention and sharing of license plate reader information. http://www.vachiefs.org/images/uploads/docs/AG_Opinion_LPR.pdf http://www.vachiefs.org/images/uploads/docs/AG_Opinion_LPR.p...

DaFranker 12y ago
Regarding the edit: Yes, but... (On the topic of "passive", always-on License Plate Reader data collection that is archived without looking at it "in case it's useful later"): > On these facts I conclude that the need for such data has not been "clearly established in advance," so as to conform to the applicable principle of information practice. [12] Its future value to any investigation of criminal activity is wholly speculative. Therefore, with no exemption applicable to it, the collection of LPR data in the passive manner does not comport with the Data Act's strictures and prohibitions, and may not lawfully be done. [13] To absorb this back into the whole phone records thing, here's the keypoints I gather from that: 1. Need to target specific data that is as constrained as possible given prior knowledge. E.g. If you already know someone spoke on the phone about a crime at X date and never spoke of it at any other date, you are only allowed to obtain and use the records of that date. 2. Need to be able to show reasonable belief _before collection_ that the collected data will be useful for an investigation and/or for intelligence on criminal activity. Knowing that a criminal uses a phone is not sufficient cause to collect phone records - it must be demonstrable before collection that those particular phone records might contain information useful for identifying criminal activity or for ongoing investigations. 3. Data that is mass-collected for purposes of finding a specific information (e.g. searching for a license plate by processing every car that passes through X intersection) may be kept and shared only until the target information is located and the objectives met. 4. Every data collection must have a specific purpose and clear boundaries. Collecting records "to find people who issue death threats"? NOT OKAY. Collecting records "to find this particular issuance of a death threat"? OKAY. In other, techier words, there must be a deliverable. If the goal of a data collection is open-ended, or could take decades, then you must have a specific warrant associated to that data collection, and the data must be discarded once the warrant expires and/or the investigation concludes. This is pretty much my reading of it given cursory scanning of an abstract of the GDCDPA, prior knowledge on legal interpretations for "criminal intelligence information" (an extremely important phrase), and the A.G. advisory linked in parent.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  I think this is all correct. But on my admittedly cursory reading of the Wired article, I didn't see any clear indication that the police departments involved have violated any of these restrictions. Of course, this is mostly for lack of detail. There are lots of areas where a violation could have occurred.
  - jeangenie 12y ago
    Talk to someone at the ACLU about ALPRs. There are currently no restrictions or policies around their usage or data retention or sharing. We as citizens have absolutely no way of knowing if these are being used in ways we don't approve of. It's a problem.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 12y ago

I'm not so sure about that. It's not unusual to hear of cases being solved through matches with a fingerprint or DNA database (obviously problematic for civil liberties), and I don't think there's a bright-line standard for sharing of legally obtained evidence. I would like it if there was, but are you sure that you're not projecting your view of how things should work onto how they actually do? Can you offer some support for your claim?

DaFranker 12y ago
My claim is that the above terms and concepts, in a legal courtroom, are not automatically equal, and a judge may or may not rule completely differently on a case whenever any one of those factors change. Notice, if you read correctly, that I didn't make any particular judgment as to whether or not I think it's legal or not, or whether I think it should be legal or not. My intent was simply in pointing out that the commenter's assumptions and logical deductions were unsound as far as a judge looking at a court case might be concerned.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Reading correctly, the commenter you replied to posed a question rather than stating any assumptions. You said 'in most american states, "obtained legally" != "legal to archive" != "legal to look at whenever you want" != "legal to share" != "legal to use for any purpose other than that which it was originally obtained for".' So you seem to be claiming that these are distinct legal categories which affect the admissibility of evidence at trial. I don't think this is true; as far as I am aware, prosecutors and police can freely share information collected in different cases as long as that evidence is all disclosed to the defendant prior to trial (and early enough for the defense to prepare or seek a continuance etc.). For example, it's legal (per the Supreme Court) to take DNA swabs from arrestees without a warrant even if no charges are brought, and all such DNA evidence is by default loaded into a national database known as CODIS. Your DNA data, according to a majority of the Supreme Court can legally be archived, looked at whenever law enforcement wants, shared, and used for other purposes than that which it was originally obtained for. http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/dnadatabases.html http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/dnadatabases.html So again I ask, do you have something to back up your claim about things being different in 'most american states' or were you just saying you didn't think it worked that way?