Concerns about Automatic License Plate Readers
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2022 4:31 pm
Colleagues,
After weeks of research and consultation with privacy experts, I have developed grave concerns over the proposal to reinstate the Automatic License Plate Reader program for our police. These concerns are shared by many in the community, from local constituent groups to national organizations like the ACLU.
ALPRs allow the government to gather extensive information about the movements and associations of all Austin residents. While this surveillance network may generate evidence for solving some limited crimes, it does so at the expense of the privacy of our city’s residents.
In 2003, the Austin City Council passed a resolution in response to the Patriot Act’s unprecedented expansion of government surveillance. Resolution NO. 030925-66 specifically barred the surveillance of individuals or groups of individuals “without reasonable and particularized suspicion of criminal conduct.” I stand by this statement of Austin’s values, and I believe the ALPR resolution in its current form would violate these long held principles.
I propose the following changes to the ALPR resolution:
1. Limiting acceptable targets to pre-approved categories of crimes and emergencies
We should limit the types of crimes we target to those which require escalated police involvement, like stolen vehicles, violent crimes, and missing persons cases. If we fail to constrain the targeted crime categories, ALPR technology is easily exploited by targeting politically marginalized groups and conducting “fishing expeditions” for warrants as trivial as a decades-old misdemeanor charge.
2. 3-minute retention period for data not associated with a crime or emergency
A 3-minute retention period would limit the use of ALPR technology to the identification of pre-flagged license plates. A 30 day limit is extremely excessive for this purpose and allows for abuses like the NYPD’s practice of tracking mosque attendees or multiple PD’s practice of recording all vehicles in attendance at Black Lives Matter protests. If we allow a longer limit, we are endorsing a surveillance program that could potentially track the movements of all vehicles in the city without any evidence of criminal behavior.
3. Limiting the sharing of ALPR data to purposes consistent with Austin’s values
ALPR data is historically insecure. In addition to frequent leaks of millions of people’s private information online, ALPR data is regularly used by organizations like ICE to target immigrants for deportation. Legal experts also warn that the state of Texas will almost certainly use ALPR data to enforce abortion bans. These are only a few examples of the multitude of ways our data could be abused once it leaves the protective custody of our city government. We must control access to ALPR data as strictly as legally possible.
The only ALPR program I would consider is one with substantial protections for civil liberties, including all 3 limitations outlined above. In that spirit, I offer the following as a substitute resolution to item 90.
Link: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 162504.pdf
Saludos,
Chito
After weeks of research and consultation with privacy experts, I have developed grave concerns over the proposal to reinstate the Automatic License Plate Reader program for our police. These concerns are shared by many in the community, from local constituent groups to national organizations like the ACLU.
ALPRs allow the government to gather extensive information about the movements and associations of all Austin residents. While this surveillance network may generate evidence for solving some limited crimes, it does so at the expense of the privacy of our city’s residents.
In 2003, the Austin City Council passed a resolution in response to the Patriot Act’s unprecedented expansion of government surveillance. Resolution NO. 030925-66 specifically barred the surveillance of individuals or groups of individuals “without reasonable and particularized suspicion of criminal conduct.” I stand by this statement of Austin’s values, and I believe the ALPR resolution in its current form would violate these long held principles.
I propose the following changes to the ALPR resolution:
1. Limiting acceptable targets to pre-approved categories of crimes and emergencies
We should limit the types of crimes we target to those which require escalated police involvement, like stolen vehicles, violent crimes, and missing persons cases. If we fail to constrain the targeted crime categories, ALPR technology is easily exploited by targeting politically marginalized groups and conducting “fishing expeditions” for warrants as trivial as a decades-old misdemeanor charge.
2. 3-minute retention period for data not associated with a crime or emergency
A 3-minute retention period would limit the use of ALPR technology to the identification of pre-flagged license plates. A 30 day limit is extremely excessive for this purpose and allows for abuses like the NYPD’s practice of tracking mosque attendees or multiple PD’s practice of recording all vehicles in attendance at Black Lives Matter protests. If we allow a longer limit, we are endorsing a surveillance program that could potentially track the movements of all vehicles in the city without any evidence of criminal behavior.
3. Limiting the sharing of ALPR data to purposes consistent with Austin’s values
ALPR data is historically insecure. In addition to frequent leaks of millions of people’s private information online, ALPR data is regularly used by organizations like ICE to target immigrants for deportation. Legal experts also warn that the state of Texas will almost certainly use ALPR data to enforce abortion bans. These are only a few examples of the multitude of ways our data could be abused once it leaves the protective custody of our city government. We must control access to ALPR data as strictly as legally possible.
The only ALPR program I would consider is one with substantial protections for civil liberties, including all 3 limitations outlined above. In that spirit, I offer the following as a substitute resolution to item 90.
Link: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 162504.pdf
Saludos,
Chito