Police Departments Using Car Tracking Database Sworn To Secrecy

An anonymous reader writes "Vigilant Solutions maintains what they claim is the nation's largest database of license-plate tracking data, 'LEARN' (Law Enforcement Archival and Reporting Network). But when a law enforcement agency signs up to use the database, they are sworn to keep it secret. The reason? They are quite clear about that: 'to prohibit users from cooperating with any media outlet to bring attention to LEARN or LEARN-NVLS.' So, they're tracking you (they're tracking everybody)... but they don't want you to know. The agreement, uncovered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, states: You shall not create, publish, distribute, or permit any written, electronically transmitted or other form of publicity material that makes reference to LEARN or this Agreement without first submitting the material to LEARN-NVLS and receiving written consent from LEARN-NVLS. This prohibition is specifically intended to prohibit users from cooperating with any media outlet to bring attention to LEARN or LEARN-NVLS. Breach this provision may result in LEARN-NVLS immediately termination of this Agreement upon notice to you."

Immediately after WIRED published the story, though, the agreement mysteriously changed. The secrecy provision is still there, but the statement that it's 'specifically intended' to prevent the media attention has vanished."

Comments

Same exact issue with "stingray" cell interception

[Anonymous Coward]

They sign extensive NDA's and "must" deny any and all usage of stingray cell phone "dummy tower" interception devices also - why?

Probably because they have hidden legal ramifications that haven't been addressed. Why else?

Hiding shady practices

[stewsters]

The obvious answer is because it is probably illegal to track everyone everywhere, but as long as knowledge of this doesn't go to the court no one will know and therefore they cannot rule it illegal. That's sketchy.

Re:Hiding shady practices

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the cameras are in public places or with the approval of the owner of private garages, it is not illegal. It is however very unwanted by the populace, as those who have nothing to hide don't want to feel like they need to start hiding.

While this is (hopefully) just an aggregation of public data, it can (possibly) provide the same scale of information that GPS trackers on every car would provide (at somewhat lower detail). Since a warrant is needed to GPS a car, this sort of thing has entered a legal loophole that its owners do not want closed.

Re:Hiding shady practices

[LifesABeach]

With respect to evidence in the state of California, if ALL, and I mean ALL evidence that the state/county have is not made available, then the Defendent can move for a Mistrial.

Re:Hiding shady practices

[currently_awake]

if you have proof they are terrorists then have a trial and lock them up. if you don't have proof then you are just guessing, and nobody should be locked up because of that.

Re:Hiding shady practices

[plover]

There's a significant difference between "notify" and "track". The primary purpose of these systems is to identify every license plate, look up any violations, and alert the officer. You won't be flagged in the database if you aren't already in trouble for something else.

Regarding tracking, that's a different problem. Our state has a law that prohibits the police from retaining the data for more than two days. They are not permitted to build up a database of my comings and goings. Two days gives them enough leeway to search for "hot" problems, such as an amber alert, or fleeing felon.

It may not be a technically perfect solution to privacy, and could be subject to abuse, but I think it's a workable compromise.

Re:Hiding shady practices

[gerardrj]

If you are going to detain people under the laws of the United States then those people should have all the protections of the laws of the United States. Equality under the law is a core principle.

The people in Guantanamo are not terrorists. They are accused terrorists. Send them to the international criminal court for proper trial.

Re:Hiding shady practices

[Joey Vegetables]

Something like that is part of the federal rules of civil procedure, as well as those of most if not all states. Unfortunately it is up to the judge to enforce and many judges simply won't, unless the prosecution has done something to piss him or her off. Collusion between cops, prosecutors, and judges is very common, as in the end they all work for the same system and have much to gain and little to lose by cooperating.

Severla months ago...

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

I posted a story which did not get accepted about John Filippidis. A guy who had a concealed carry permit in Florida. He did own a gun, and left it at home when on a trip. Maryland police stopped him and detained him for a couple of hours for no reason.

This was made possible be datamining efforts and automatic license scanneres.

Very chilling.

Re:Severla months ago...

[PeeAitchPee]

Link to the story that you mention from the Tampa newspaper. Maryland police forces have a history of this kind of thuggish behavior; even now, the MD State Police and the MD press (e.g., the Baltimore Sun) refuse to comment or even report on this story.

Re:Severla months ago...

[PeeAitchPee]

Reading comprehension not so good, eh? He left the gun in FL at home, locked up . . . MD cops stopped him, somehow knew of his FL permit (there is absolutely no legal way they could have, of course), and ordered him to give them them the gun. When he wouldn't (couldn't) comply, they proceeded to tear the car's contents apart on the side of the highway and terrorize his family. So just maybe, it's the "batshit-crazy" behavior of jack-booted fascist states like Maryland that is the problem here.

Re:So

[BiIl_the_Engineer]

I drive on PUBLIC roads but I don't want people to know where I drive.

It's not that I don't want random people to be able to see me; it's that I don't want my own fucking government to install surveillance equipment everywhere (or hire others to do so) in an effort to automatically track my location. Stop equating the two, you dumb shits.

Some people really need to live in another country for a while to understand what REAL civil rights violations are like.

The mere fact that the situation could be worse does not mean that what's happening is not bad. What terrible logic.

What, you got punched in the face? That's not a bad thing, because starving people in Africa are much worse off!

Even more chilling

[mice7943]

Vigilant Solutions warehouses the data themselves and then sells it back to the consumer (in this case the local Police). To avoid ACLU issues with the Police actually handling the data they prefer to use Vigilant. Vigilant also shares this data between these organizations - so much so that going with any other system becomes pointless for the local Police. In short - one corporation having access to the location and habits of much of the country and then controlling access to that data. Chilling indeed.

Re:Even more chilling

[MightyYar]

I really detest this separation courts have setup between "private" corporations and the government. The government gives corporations their charter and is the only reason they exist in the first place. So we decide that we can't trust our elected officials with certain responsibilities, and so instead we give those same responsibilities to unelected owners. Oh, and those owners can then take that taxpayer money and funnel it right back to the elected officials in the form of legal "lobbying".

The whole thing is batty.

Looks like

[MitchDev]

a prime target for "Anonymous"....

Not surprising

[Registered Coward v2]

Companies that collect data are realizing people are starting to become more aware of what is being collected and concerned about it. If enough people start making noise Congress may start to act and limit what can be collected and how it is used.

Here is an interesting thought for the real lawyers that read /. Could someone subpoena their data, if say they were charged with crime? Or as part of a civil suit? I would think not since they really aren't a part of the issue unless perhaps the cops used the data to locate someone or in an investigation, in which case this layman's view is the accused would have a right to see the data and challenge its use.

Of course, if the data became public imagine the havoc it could cause. Could you see the reaction from an elected official if a reporter showed up and asked them very detailed questions about their comings and goings?

Cops not complaining about secrecy!

[redelm]

Please note, the cops probably _like_ the "restriction": When asked, it permits them to answer "It is illegal for us to comment", or to a judge "We cannot comment without violating our contractual agreements." People forget judicial privilige overrides contract.

As as posted by another, the use of the database could violate some data-protection law saying "access to this DB is restricted to ongoing official police investigations". Not to stalk GFs! So LAPD has to make the bogus claim that all drivers in LA are under investigation. Otherwise, their use of the tag readers tied to the tag owner DB would be illegal. And everything found thereafter excluded from evidence as "fruit of the poisoned vine". Not something they want to contemplate.

Re:Same exact issue with "stingray" cell intercept

[davester666]

They learned from the best, namely criminals. If nobody talks, everybody walks.

Re:Same exact issue with "stingray" cell intercept

[Mister Transistor]

You are correct. Even the Police aren't allowed to use cellular transmitters or jammers by law, they are not licensed to legally transmit on those frequencies, and they are not legally allowed to intercept telephone conversations without a warrant. Not even for "the children".

Only the DOD (military) in the US can legally use such technology, but that isn't stopping the cops from doing whatever they want, including violating the US criminal code and defying the FCC. So naturally, they want to keep it on the down-low...