Designer: Samuel Cahuao
Imagine receiving hundreds of calls and texts from an ex-partner for months alluding to your location, and having no idea how they knew where you were at what times and on what days. This is starting to become the reality of many people, and they eventually discover that their law enforcement ex is using a growing system of cameras to track their every move.
For example, in one Georgia case, a police chief was found to have looked up the license plates of his ex-girlfriend and her teenage daughter roughly 600 times over the course of 13 months, according to The Washington Post.
These cameras are called Automatic License Plate Readers, or ALPRs, and their use has exploded in recent years all over the country, with over 140,000 cameras installed. ALPRs record license plate numbers that come into view and save the location data to a database. Data can be stored anywhere from several minutes to several years.
The most known producer of these cameras is a private company called Flock Safety, which produces and sells AI powered ALPRs to customers nationwide.
These customers, which are usually law enforcement, businesses or communities, own and manage their own data. Many law enforcement agencies chose to share their data with one another, and many opt to be a part of the nationwide network.
Websites mapping ALPRs such as findingflock.com show just how many are in each area. It’s alarming to realize that most people’s daily routes to school, work and their homes are logged and put into a database, even if they did no crime.
These cameras have been a great resource for law enforcement locally and nationally in cases involving things such as missing persons and children, stolen vehicles and locating a suspect of a crime. For example, in July, a missing girl was found in less than 30 minutes using Flock cameras in Toledo, according to WTVG.
However, something that is concerning is that plate searches do not usually require a warrant. In most criminal cases, police would need a warrant to access a person’s location from their cell phone records. However, officers generally do not need one to search the Flock database.
More restrictions on plate searches is imperative in keeping people’s privacy protected and holding authorities accountable. Each search should be linked with a criminal case number or warrant.
The biggest issue with these cameras is that the use of their databases are widely unregulated, and most police agencies have to determine their own rules for database searches, data retention and handling misuse. There are no federal laws supervising this, and only 24 states have created state laws pertaining to ALPR use. With so little standards, misuse of these databases is inevitable.
At least 50 law enforcement officers have been charged or accused of using ALPR data for unauthorized purposes. In over half of these cases, records were used to search the license plates of women without their knowledge or consent, according to The Washington Post.
These types of cases are happening closer to home than people might realize. On Sept. 3, City of Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther announced a suspension of Flock camera use in the city after it was discovered that a police officer had apparently used Flock databases to search a single plate number 272 times in the span of 13 months, according to NBC4.
The intense nationwide backlash against Flock cameras is a rare unifying moment for Americans of all different backgrounds and beliefs. The seemingly bipartisan movement demonstrates the increasing need for reform.
When used correctly and responsibly, ALPRs do have great potential as a tool for law enforcement. However, operating them without strict regulations in place endangers personal privacy and many worry that use could be taken too far.
The essential role that police officers play in their communities keep people safe and protected. The use of ALPRs is breaking down trust between police and the population, and change must happen to ensure a stronger relationship between the two.
Columbus Chief of Police Elaine Bryant is already taking steps towards this accountability, saying in a statement “…the effectiveness of a tool does not eliminate our responsibility to use it appropriately. Every search must have a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, and misuse will not be tolerated.”
Be the first to comment