Slashdot Mirror
Judge Allows L.A. Cops To Keep License Plate Reader Data Secret
An anonymous reader writes:
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has ruled that the Los Angeles Police Department is not required to hand over a week's worth of license plate reader data to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He cited the potential of compromising criminal investigations and giving (un-charged) criminals the ability to determine whether or not they were being targeted by law enforcement (PDF). The ACLU and the EFF sought the data under the California Public Records Act, but the judge invoked Section 6254(f), "which protects investigatory files." ACLU attorney Peter Bibring notes, "New surveillance techniques may function better if people don't know about them, but that kind of secrecy is inconsistent with democratic policing."
A classic case of, "we know better than you?" Now by LAPD. The only thing that was omitted was, "it's for the children."
Is that police department going to find a new revenue source by selling license plate and location data to somebody else who will correlate and sell location likelihood information to businesses/marketing companies?
Is that police department allowed to tag me in their system even though I wasn't under investigation, but passed their camera? Then, do they get to keep that info forever? What happens if I'm accidentally put on the no-fly list, I mean watch list, I mean...
These guys can't be trusted to type my license plate correctly, now they get permanent location, tracking and correlation? No.
I'm no Luddite, but this stuff and its related capabilities makes me want to go live in the woods. I'm sick of this.
My mom says I'm cool.
I don't necessarily like knowing cops have this information but so long as there's rules over the collection (see above) I'm okay with this. If the EFF and ACLU (whom I normally support) wants the actual data, they can get their own OCR license plate cameras and drive around.
If the data doesn't belong to us, then the cops don't work for us, either. If we don't have a right to the methodology, then we're simply slaves.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In the first place, I think "The LAPD notionally works for the people" is closer to the truth. Judged by their behavior over the last 50 years, they should be classified as a 'street gang'.
Secondly, if the public doesn't have access to the data they're collecting, then we don't know what they're collecting. It sounds like a tautology, but the difference is very real. All we have is their word on what data they are and are not collecting, or when that changes (increases). Without access to that data, we are forced to take them at their word. Which is probably OK, because we all know that "cops never, ever, ever lie".
NO there isnt. Better to have Liberty than security in this case. I want ot see what the police see, i want to know what the police are doing. We do not hire them to be secretive. ENOUGH with 'state secrets'
Good-bye
You dont hold on to Liberty by viewing every citizen as a murderous stalker.
Good-bye
A sufficient time delay before the information becomes public would solve most or all of the problem with compromising investigations.
How do you define "sufficient time" in any meaningful way?
Real-lie criminal investigations are not wrapped up in the sixty minutes or so they are allotted on a TV show like CSI or Criminal Minds.
The stakes can be high, quite literally, life and death.
This is the primary problem with "sweep" methods of collecting data.
There MIGHT be something in the "sweep" that MAY impact a current investigation. Therefore, ALL of the "sweep" must be hidden from the public.
Bullshit. There shouldn't be any difficulty in removing the items relevant to a current investigation. The should already be tagged as such. Then release the rest.
This is a case of "collect EVERYTHING and keep it FOREVER" so that anyone can be backtracked if the cops or politicians decide to do so. Where do you go? When? Why? What do you do there?
Now imagine a cop tracking your daughter to find out where she lives and where she works and which college she goes to and when she leaves for classes.
I read a lot of discussion comments vilifying Democrat or Republican presidents, representatives and senators. People are slowly realizing that both parties are equally bad. I take this as given, and anticipated by the Founding Fathers.
The antidote is supposed to be the judiciary, from the bottom all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, the scales are now falling from my eyes. I a sadly conclude that judges are partisan, stupid, have not respect for the Constitution and the long-term consequences of their decisions. They are completely beholden to the executive and legislative branches and have abdicated their responsibilities. They have lost my respect.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
You're kidding right? This is absolutely a farse. The data set isn't insanely large and they could simply redact any specific records that may relate to active investigations.
The LAPD obviously doesn't want people to know they just run the shit out of everyone without cause, effectively committing searches without probable or even generally reasonable public safety cause.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
At least the LAPD nominally works for the people.
A murderous stalker doesn't.
So yeah, there are some really good reasons to keep the raw data from the public.
The LAPD "working for the people" is an implied mission statement. It doesn't really reflect the individuals within the organization. A murderous stalker has to actually follow you to gather info, but the LAPD officer doesn't now, that's the only difference. The police can just as easily abuse a power given to them, kinda like those NSA agents using their expensive taxpayer-funded gear and government-granted spying powers to stalk love interests.
There was a scene in the 1997 movie Men In Black where Tommy Lee Jones's character is sitting at a console with high-resolution satellite imagery available in real time, and he zooms in on a suburban home, and the women he once knew years ago, and the thinks of the life he could have had if he hadn't become a MIB agent. That movie was so long before all this War on Terror and domestic spying BS no one recognized that scene for what it was.
I don't necessarily like knowing cops have this information but so long as there's rules over the collection (see above) I'm okay with this.
But you have no idea if they are following those rules at all. Police have a long history of flagrantly violating such rules:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com...
http://www.thenewsherald.com/a...
http://articles.courant.com/20...
And using their position to rape and murder:
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetim...
http://time.com/3159146/oklaho...
http://articles.courant.com/20...
Access to 1 weeks worth of data would allow the public as a whole to see how they are being monitored. The few criminal investigations that may be impacted pale in comparison to the overwhelming public right to know what the police are up to.
Do you think your income tax records, water usage, parking ticket record, etc should be publicly available? All of this is data owned by the government. Just because it belongs to the people does not mean that is is not private data and should not be available to the public.
Fine, have an independent oversight board review the records without making them public while keeping the details secret.
I personally think you've missed the point. The point is that the cops shouldn't tagging *anyone* unless they are currently under investigation. If the cops happen to get a false hit, that data should be expunged *immediately* - immediately in the sense that they never even get to see it, because there is no reason they need it.
Fine, have an independent oversight board review the records without making them public while keeping the details secret.
I nominate the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as the independent review boards.
"His name was James Damore."
If it's just data and your average street cop has access to it, it's hackable. It's only a matter of time.
id rather let criminals walk, over infringing on innocent americans constitutional rightd
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The ACLU fought the wrong fight on this one. The public should absolutely not have access to *everyone's* plate reader data, that would enable serious privacy abuses and criminal acts ("My ex-wife got a restraining order and hid from me, I'll find her car and then I'll show that bitch...") , and should not have access to lists of people the cops especially want to find (the "hot lists" referred to in the article.)
But people should be able to use plate reader data for their own vehicles specifically to defend themselves in court. ("I couldn't have killed the guy, the cops saw my car across town five minutes later." And yes, there are obvious holes in that defense, but it's admissible and useful.)
"its value as an investigative tool would be severely compromised."
I'd be interested to see how these same police departments would respond if identical ALPRs were placed near police stations, government buildings & affluent neighborhoods by private individuals. I imagine it ending quite quickly in threats, arrests & even possibly injuries. Its funny how a surveillance tool is so great until the general public turns it on those in authority (tape recorders, video cameras, cell phone cameras, drones), then it miraculously needs "common sense" restrictions that those in authority are almost always exempt from.
> income tax records, water usage, parking ticket record, etc should be publicly available?
Since we're playing the "Should game", income tax shouldn't be paid to the public anyway, so moot.
Water usage is monitored by a private utility company in my area, but yes.
Parking ticket record. Yes.
no, but its the point that they dont care about the actual data, they care about how its being abused or potentially is being abused
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Just so this is perfectly clear - I am an 'un-charged criminal', and so are you. What this is proposing is that the basis of innocent until proven guilty, the freedom from undue search and or seizure, which I am quite sure would have included having armed men follow one around observing them at all times, are all guarantees that we have but are not demanding from our own constitution.
What threat is so great that we accept these conditions? What threat is greater than tyranny and secrecy?
"No good deed goes unpunished"