Obtained Emails Show FBI's General Counsel Briefly Concerned About Privacy Implications Of License Plate Readers
from the but-hey,-it's-a-great-program-with-loads-of-support! dept
According to documents obtained by the ACLU, the FBI briefly had a crisis of (4th Amendment) conscience while putting together its license plate reader program. How it talked itself out of its privacy concerns remains secret, as do any policies or guidelines addressing potential privacy issues. All we have so far is a heavily-redacted email in which the FBI’s General Counsel is noted as struggling with the issue.
Effective and transparent regulation and oversight are critical if the FBI is to continue to develop and buy license plate readers for FBI programs around the country. The FBI’s own lawyers seemed to agree, at least in part. An email exchange from June 2012 shows that the FBI temporarily stopped its purchases of license plate readers based on advice from its Office of General Counsel, which indicated that it was “wrestling with LPR privacy issues.” The documents do not show what “privacy issues” were identified or what happened next.
From the obtained emails:
The Office of the General Councel [sic] (OGC) is still wrestling with LPR privacy issues. The reason the AD stopped our purchase [redacted] cameras was based on advice from the OGC. Once these issues have been resolved… hopefully this Summer… we expect to be back. The program is still growing and we enjoy tremendous field support.
While this one notes the OGC’s concerns, the rest of the emails seem cheerily unconcerned. Even this “wrestling” is surrounded by uptempo statements about the program’s growth and popularity.
What’s also made clear in the obtained emails is that ELSAG North America was chosen as the FBI’s ALPR vendor in a less-than-open bidding process.
An undated document explains the need for a less than full and open bidding process for the FBI’s acquisition of license plate readers, noting that ELSAG will provide an ALPR system “custom designed for a specific concealment to fulfill an unmet operational need.” The FBI’s Operational Technology Division “has invested an estimated $400k in labor to design, develop, and test of [sic] ELSAG deployment solutions.”
Other emails hint at the existence of a DOJ policy on FBI ALPR usage, but that document has yet to be released to the public. From what IS included in these email exchanges, it would appear the DOJ’s policy is very sympathetic to the arguments made by the FBI’s Video Surveillance Unit (VSU).
The [redacted] memo is close. It should be issued by the DOJ within a week or so, and per [redacted] should be favorable to VSU’s position.
While it’s nice to see the FBI slowed its ALPR acquisitions ever-so-briefly to consider privacy implications, it would be more enlightening to see the OGC’s thought processes, as well as the resulting policies governing the usage of license plate readers. For that matter, it would nice to see the DOJ’s decision on the matter, which appears to be even more expansive than the FBI’s internal conclusions. But both of those remain securely in the hands of the respective agencies, hidden from the public whose privacy was briefly considered before being rationalized away in two separate legal memorandums.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, fbi, general counsel, license plate readers, privacy
Comments on “Obtained Emails Show FBI's General Counsel Briefly Concerned About Privacy Implications Of License Plate Readers”
What we need
What we need are those rotating license plate housings like what James Bond had back when. Get license plates in multiple states, mount them in the housing, and every time you visit some burg that has LPR’s, you switch plates to another state… Oh, and use a different name when you get those plates. 🙂
Re: What we need
If you’re going to get license plates in multiple states, then why not driver’s licenses as well? That’s what James Bond would have done — a half century ago, before computer databases, car plate-readers, and human face-readers complicated matters somewhat.
Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
Modern tech makes looking up owners from plate numbers trivial – you don’t need a plate scanner, you just need a camera and Internet connection.
When introduced 100 years ago, plates could have had the owner’s name on them – but that was considered an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Quasi-random plate numbers made looking up owners possible, but intentionally difficult and slow.
Technology has changed that. We accept plates now only because we’re used to them. Unless you think it’s also a good idea to require pedestrians to wear a giant sign with their name on it, it’s time to get rid of license plates.
Cars already have VIN numbers stamped all over them – that is enough. The VIN is printed small and isn’t readable by every passing person.
If you get pulled over for a traffic violation, then the cop can ask for your vehicle paperwork.
Re: Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
Unfortunately, too many states are implementing “toll by plate” and are discussing “ticket by plate” using LPRs instead of toll-booth attendants. Much cheaper for them – and much worse for us.
Re: Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
Although I started off disagreeing with this idea, OldMugWump has, over a series of discussions, changed my mind. I support this notion.
Re: Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
This is the kind of worry I have with more and more police being made to wear cameras, also. Even if it might mitigate the current obvious problems I think a point will come where me might regret the clarion call to force a Robe of Eyes on each and every LEO.
Re: Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
What about hit and run incidents, or finding stolen cars? Cars are not individually identifiable by a photograph or witness without a visible number readable by any passing person.
Re: Re: Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
…Cars are not individually identifiable by a photograph or witness without a visible number…
Think DOT numbers on the sides of commercial trucks. Is this where we’re going? All cars would have to have a large format number on their sides?
And for those wondering why these numbers exist: take a look next time you’re on an interstate and pass a commercial vehicle checkpoint. Chances are you’ll see a camera pointing sideways at the highway. That camera is scanning for those DOT numbers. If a truck passes without authorization the owner will get a citation in the mail. (There are programs that allow participating trucks to bypass these checkpoints.)
Re: Re: Re: Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
In other words a variation of a number plate.
Re: Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
It wouldn’t be very difficult to make plates that change every hour or so, either. With some e-paper-type display it could probably be done for $30. The licensing authority could give you a 12-month supply of numbers when you renew, and would be able to look up the values when necessary (assuming the approximate time of reading is known).
Re: Re: Past time to get rid of license plates altogether
“The licensing authority could give you a 12-month supply of numbers when you renew, and would be able to look up the values when necessary”
In which case, what’s the point? This solution would do nearly nothing to mitigate the privacy problem.
How coquettish...
Flirting with a bad conscience you are not going to act on is no substitute for moral behavior. So what are they doing? Evaluating, most likely.
“Those things are really illegal and bad. Let’s offer someone higher up some of the spoils in return for an amnesty and/or coverup.”
this type of technology used against the citizens is traitorous and those who approve and participate should be treated as the traitors to the Constitution that they are