New Haven wants to install red light cameras and speed cameras. It needs to be brought under control and limits put on the data they collect and it is not just a Connecticut problem.Most CT drivers 'scanned hundreds if not thousands of times' by 'unregulated' license plate readers
CT Insider
By Jordan Nathaniel Fenster,
March 11, 2024It took an act of law to allow municipalities to install red light and speed cameras. It requires towns to file extensive plans with the state for the locations of automated traffic control devices and must by law provide a status update 18 months later.
The regulations around the use of red light and speed cameras are so onerous that West Hartford had to revise its rollout timeframe.
[…]
By contrast, there are few, if any, regulations regarding the use of license plate readers or the data they collect in Connecticut. There is no information made public about precisely how many license plate readers are used in the state, though they are used by many police departments in addition to many private companies, civil liberties experts say.
“Odds are, most drivers in Connecticut have been scanned hundreds if not thousands of times collectively throughout the state because the readers are so prevalent at this point,” said David McGuire, CT ACLU executive director.
In the magazine Wired they wrote,A company installed license plate cameras without permission. SC agency wants clear rules
Post and Courier
By David Ferrara
March 11, 2024Most of the license plate cameras on your daily commute are government authorized and taxpayer funded, running your tag against a database of stolen vehicles and wanted criminals, and then storing the information for future reference.
However, it's possible that a camera was one of hundreds installed on state roads by a private company without permission, and with little regulation on what they could do with the photos of citizens and their plates.
State Transportation Secretary Christy Hall told a reporter in February that the agency found more than 200 unpermitted Flock Safety cameras during routine monitoring of public roads.
"It is unclear to us as to whether or not these devices are authorized to be on the state-owned right of way," Hall said in a Forbes report. "And there has not been public policy put into place by the South Carolina Legislature regarding the use of these devices, (or the) privacy concerns regarding the collection, handling and disposition of the data they collect."
Currently, nine states have almost entirely banned abortion, and more are expected to follow suit. Many Republican lawmakers in these states are discussing the possibility of preventing people from traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion. If such plans are enacted and withstand legal scrutiny, one of the key technologies that could be deployed to track people trying to cross state lines is automated license plate readers (ALPRs). They’re employed heavily by police forces across the US, but they’re also used by private actors.
So, who's at risk if the Orange County Sheriff's Department has shared data it collects from automated license plate readers with police agencies in Texas towns like Giddings, El Paso, Gulfport, Liberty County, Nacogdoches County and Wise County? Could that California-collected data be used to track down and prosecute folks who help Texas women get care that's legal here, but outlawed there?
Turns out OCSD — and 70 other police agencies across 22 California counties — have received demand letters from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union, urging them to stop sharing this data with states that restrict or outlaw abortion. California's Attorney General has been copied on those letters as well.
"ALPR (automated license plate reader) technology is a powerful surveillance system that can be used to invade the privacy of individuals and violate the rights of entire communities," the demand letters read.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that,
Over the last decade, a vast number of law enforcement agencies around the country have adopted a mass surveillance technology that uses cameras to track the vehicles of every driver on the road, with little thought or respect given to the ways this technology might be abused. Now, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling, that technology may soon be turned against people seeking abortions, the people who support them, and the workers who provide reproductive healthcare.
[…]
Few states have enacted regulations and, consequently, law enforcement agencies collect as much data as possible on everyone, regardless of any connection to a crime, and store it for excessively long periods of time (a year or two years is common). Law enforcement agencies typically do not require officers to get a warrant, demonstrate probable cause or reasonable suspicion, or show really much proof at all of a law enforcement interest before searching ALPR data. Meanwhile, as EFF has shown through hundreds of public records requests, it is the norm that agencies will share ALPR data they collect broadly with other agencies nationwide, without requiring any justification that the other agencies need unfettered access. Police have long argued that you don't have an expectation of privacy when driving on public streets, conveniently dodging how this data could be used to reveal private information about you, such as when you visit a reproductive health clinic.
That means there's very little to stop a determined police investigator from using either their own ALPR systems to enforce abortion bans or accessing the ALPR databases of another jurisdiction to do so. If a state or city wants to protect the right to seek an abortion, they must ensure that places that have criminalized abortion cannot access their data.
We cannot put the genie back in the bottle but we can add controls on those collecting the data. As a bare minimum there needs to be limits on;Sacramento Sheriff is sharing license plate reader data with anti-abortion states, records show
Sacramento Bee
By ANDREW SHEELER
JULY 05, 2023In 2015, Democratic Elk Grove Assemblyman Jim Cooper voted for Senate Bill 34, which restricted law enforcement from sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with out-of-state authorities. In 2023, now-Sacramento County Sheriff Cooper appears to be doing just that.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) a digital rights group, has sent Cooper a letter requesting that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office cease sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies that could use it to prosecute someone for seeking an abortion.
According to documents that the Sheriff’s Office provided EFF through a public records request, it has shared license plate reader data with law enforcement agencies in states that have passed laws banning abortion, including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas.
Adam Schwartz, EFF senior staff attorney, called automated license plate readers “a growing threat to everyone’s privacy ... that are out there by the thousands in California.”
- Who can collect the data,
- Who can see the data,
- How they can see the data, do they need a subpoena,
- For how long the data can be kept.
So what does this have to do about trans?
Suppose a state like Texas wants a list of all cars with Texas license plates turning into Planned Parenthood in Connecticut where they treat trans children and do consultations about pregnancies? Do you think that would intimidate a trans child from getting proper healthcare?
I am wondering how long it will take for license plate readouts to appear in cable television crime dramas. There is already cell phone tower information. In Washington State someone in the government thinks it is a good idea to install speed infraction cameras on Interstate 5. Anything to make a buck!
ReplyDelete