LAPD: All cars are under investigation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2014/3/25/lapd-all-cars-areunderinvestigation.html

The Los Angeles Police Department says it cannot release information about its automatic license plate reader program because all cars in the Los Angeles metropolitan area are under investigation.

The LAPD made this legal argument in response to a records request from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which sought to find out what the license plate readers had captured, as well as the department's policies for retaining and sharing the data.

Automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems like the one employed by the LAPD take photos of any and all license plates, storing the plate number, time and location.

The LAPD's legal argument for denying the records request is novel in that it characterizes data collection not tied to a specific criminal case as investigatory, arguing that it may prove useful in future investigations. feth me

The LAPD's filing reads: "All ALPR data is investigatory — regardless of whether a license plate scan results in an immediate 'hit' because, for instance, the vehicle may be stolen, the subject of an 'Amber Alert,' or operated by an individual with an outstanding arrest warrant."

Transparency reports and successful records requests across the country have raised concerns about ALPR programs like the one in Los Angeles.

A public record request about the Boston Police Department's license plate readers caused the program to be shut down after it was revealed that the department failed to protect personal data and that license plate readers were deployed primarily in low-income neighborhoods.

In February, it was revealed that Vermont had granted various federal agencies access to its database of 8 million license plates and location records.

ALPR programs elsewhere have been shown to collect large amounts of data in relatively short periods of time. With just 61 scanners statewide, Vermont law enforcement performed enough scans to read every license plate in the town of Rutland 64 times in an 18-month period in 2012-2013.

Dallas law enforcement's larger ALPR deployment scanned 10.5 million license plates in three months.
Police departments have touted the ability of license plate readers to solve serious crimes like stolen vehicles. Dallas police, for example, say they have recovered 170 stolen vehicles since the start of their ALPR program.

A MuckRock and Boston Globe investigation into Boston's ALPR program suggested that the system was not focused on serious crime. In one instance, a stolen vehicle was scanned nearly 60 times without triggering action from law enforcement.

Feth Fethity feth

**Frazzled**

Pick up that can, Citizen.

**-Shrike-**

Insert slippery slope argument here.

**kronk**

Insert counter-point of "If you have nothing to hide, there isn't a problem!"

**LordofHats**

Oh LAPD. It's like you're in a race with NYPD to win the "Most Hated Public Servants" award

**Spacemanvic**

Frazzled wrote:
Pick up that can, Citizen.

Where's a crowbar when you need it...

**hotsauceman1**

Im confused, what is bad about the scanner?

**OIIIIIIO**

Everything

**hotsauceman1**

Thats helpful. I mean, how is it different from them just punching it in the computer?

**OIIIIIIO**

It is kind of like the Driving under the influence laws that my state has. I would uphold it with all of my being IF it were actually about people's safety, and it may have started that way but it is not that way right now. They are more interested in collecting the all mighty dollar rather than safety.

Prime example: My brother ( and I do love him but he does stupid crap all the time ) got himself a DUI and they racked his ass because he makes good money. ( We are both Ironworkers. ) He was forced to go to "Classes" so that he could learn to control himself and not drink and drive. He was paying $75 a class and was court ordered to take 3 classes a week. The vast majority of people that were in the same class only had to pay $25 or $10 per class if any at all. This is wrong in my book, but by the same token so is drinking and driving. I find big brother to by highly prejudicial.

**hotsauceman1**

Well, dont drink and drive.

**easysauce**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats helpful. I mean, how is it different from them just punching it in the computer?

its automated, done on everyone,

sure so long as EVERY single cop/bureaucrat/agency who uses it is 100% honest, and infallible, it can do no harm...

but we all know that isnt the case, and just like with the NSA collecting huge swaths of data, it WILL be abused, it will be compromised and leaked, and it will be used for things other then what its advertised as.

also allows for them to automatically put you into "groups of special interest"

IE "oh, look at all the plates that went to the cheech and chong show, now we have a list of pot smokers" and so on

**Easy E**

In other words, "All citizens are suspects."

**reiner**

Which violates our tenants of reasonable suspicion.

Driving a car does not qualify.

**Dreadclaw69**

It's LA, is anyone honestly surprised?

**Bran Dawri**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well, dont drink and drive.

But the same crime or misdemeanor should be punished the same way for everyone regardless of personal circumstances such as how rich they are. One possible exception (IMO): repeat offenses.

**lord_blackfang**

No surprise. Governments everywhere are gearing up for war against their own people.

Locally we have similar issues with police using some magic box to scan cell phone numbers of everyone in a certain area - used to instantly identify everyone involved in a protest, for example.

**SilverMK2**

Bran Dawri wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well, dont drink and drive.

But the same crime or misdemeanor should be punished the same way for everyone regardless of personal circumstances such as how rich they are. One possible exception (IMO): repeat offenses.

If the fine or cost of the class is based on your earnings, it is punished in the same way for everyone. If the fine is 1/1000th of your yearly wage and you earn £10k a year, you pay £10 in fines. If you earn £100k per year, you pay £100 in fines... one may pay more in absolute terms, but they both pay the same as a proportion of their wage.

**Peregrine**

Well, that's certainly an innovative new argument. Laws about not harassing or investigating innocent people getting in your way? Declare everyone a suspect!

Now we just need an equally innovative argument that this kind of stuff is treason, and public executions of everyone involved as a warning to their replacements.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Bran Dawri wrote:

But the same crime or misdemeanor should be punished the same way for everyone regardless of personal circumstances such as how rich they are. One possible exception (IMO): repeat offenses.

The only way I'd be ok with it being "different" is if they took Sweden or Norway or Finland's system, wherein the dude from Nokia got a 1.2million dollar speeding ticket, because the price of the ticket was based on his income.... which is ultimately charging people the "same" for the same offense.

**hotsauceman1**

easysauce wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats helpful. I mean, how is it different from them just punching it in the computer?

its automated, done on everyone,

sure so long as EVERY single cop/bureaucrat/agency who uses it is 100% honest, and infallible, it can do no harm...

but we all know that isnt the case, and just like with the NSA collecting huge swaths of data, it WILL be abused, it will be compromised and leaked, and it will be used for things other then what its advertised as.

also allows for them to automatically put you into "groups of special interest"

IE "oh, look at all the plates that went to the cheech and chong show, now we have a list of pot smokers" and so on

Im sorry, but License plates are already available to police. They can type it in on their Comp, and get its infor. How is that different?

**SilverMK2**

One of the issues is that the plates are automatically read, tagged with where they are, and when, making stupidly easy to then trace where people are and guess what they are doing.

Additionally, they attempting to prevent anyone getting any information on what they are actually doing, or how they are using the information.

**Ouze**

While their argument and rationale are, frankly, horrific, I don't have a problem with automatic license plate readers in general - I don't believe your reasonable expectation of privacy extends to a publicly-facing identifier like a license plate.

The problems come later, when it's possible to use the database to assemble a larger picture of the totality of your general movements in public - at that point it's legally problematic.

If there were safeguards to prevent A from morphing into B, I'd be OK with it. Database is flushed x often, or searches can only be performed on the database with a valid warrant to find X plate - something like that.

**Bullockist**

Colour me horrified, I cannot wait till they bring that over here next with the likely excuse being "because paedophiles"

**-Shrike-**

I'm sure over here we'll be told to "think of the children!"...

...those internet filters working as intended, Mr Cameron?

**Peregrine**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Additionally, they attempting to prevent anyone getting any information on what they are actually doing, or how they are using the information.

And this is the real problem. We don't know what they're doing with the information, and we're expected to just trust a group that has done nothing to deserve that trust. Why? Because everyone is a suspect! It's just more of the same old "we have all the power for your own good, don't question us" nonsense we've seen over and over again. And of course it's going to continue until the people responsible see real consequences for their actions.

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:
While their argument and rationale are, frankly, horrific, I don't have a problem with automatic license plate readers in general - I don't believe your reasonable expectation of privacy extends to a publicly-facing identifier like a license plate.

The problems come later, when it's possible to use the database to assemble a larger picture of the totality of your general movements in public - at that point it's legally problematic.

If there were safeguards to prevent A from morphing into B, I'd be OK with it. Database is flushed x often, or searches can only be performed on the database with a valid warrant to find X plate - something like that.

That is my issue. I have no problem with a cop scanning my plate 10x daily wherever I may be and sees "d-usa' car, no tickets, no violations, valid insurance, good looking". If they dump all the scans that were benign out of the system after they clear it would be okay. But if they end up with "d-usa has never done anything wrong, but every Wednesday evening be hangs out at the game store and Fridays he eats chinese" because they have a database of all my movements thanks to the scans, then there is the problem.

**Jehan-reznor**

See the future only the living commit crimes!

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Ouze wrote:
While their argument and rationale are, frankly, horrific, I don't have a problem with automatic license plate readers in general - I don't believe your reasonable expectation of privacy extends to a publicly-facing identifier like a license plate.

The problems come later, when it's possible to use the database to assemble a larger picture of the totality of your general movements in public - at that point it's legally problematic.

If there were safeguards to prevent A from morphing into B, I'd be OK with it. Database is flushed x often, or searches can only be performed on the database with a valid warrant to find X plate - something like that.

That is my issue. I have no problem with a cop scanning my plate 10x daily wherever I may be and sees "d-usa' car, no tickets, no violations, valid insurance, good looking". If they dump all the scans that were benign out of the system after they clear it would be okay. But if they end up with "d-usa has never done anything wrong, but every Wednesday evening be hangs out at the game store and Fridays he eats chinese" because they have a database of all my movements thanks to the scans, then there is the problem.

The same problem with the NSA collecting meta data from calls/emails

**Steve steveson**

d-usa wrote:
Ouze wrote:
While their argument and rationale are, frankly, horrific, I don't have a problem with automatic license plate readers in general - I don't believe your reasonable expectation of privacy extends to a publicly-facing identifier like a license plate.

The problems come later, when it's possible to use the database to assemble a larger picture of the totality of your general movements in public - at that point it's legally problematic.

If there were safeguards to prevent A from morphing into B, I'd be OK with it. Database is flushed x often, or searches can only be performed on the database with a valid warrant to find X plate - something like that.

That is my issue. I have no problem with a cop scanning my plate 10x daily wherever I may be and sees "d-usa' car, no tickets, no violations, valid insurance, good looking". If they dump all the scans that were benign out of the system after they clear it would be okay. But if they end up with "d-usa has never done anything wrong, but every Wednesday evening be hangs out at the game store and Fridays he eats chinese" because they have a database of all my movements thanks to the scans, then there is the problem.

I took that as being what the peice was about. It is not 100% clear what they are complaining about, but I think it was the holding of data rather than the checking in the first place. It is the diffrence between a police officer looking at people for suspicious behaviour and writing down details of everyone they see and cross refrenceing all activity with all other officers on an ongoing basis.