Vermont's Automatic License Plate Readers: 7.9 Million Plates Captured, Five Crimes Solved
from the the-finest-in-haystacking-technology dept
The sales pitch for automatic license plate readers is how great they are at helping cops solve crimes. From hunting down stolen cars to tracking pedophiles across jurisdictions, ALPRs supposedly make policing a breeze by gathering millions of time/date/location records every single day and making it all available to any law enforcement agency willing to buy the software and pay the licensing fees.The systems come with civil liberties baggage -- privacy issues that aren't completely articulable, at least not in terms of what the courts have held to contain sufficient expectations of privacy. A single photo of a car on a public road isn't a privacy violation. But what about dozens or hundreds of photos that more resemble a passive tracking system than a set of public snapshots? That's a bit more of a gray area -- one that hasn't been fully explored by the courts at this point. Adjacent decisions notwithstanding, ALPRs are mildly intrusive and have troubling implications due to their capabilities, but at this point, they still operate within the confines of the Constitution.
So, if civil liberties are still intact, what's the next point of attack? Maybe it's the alleged efficiency. Are law enforcement agencies getting their money's worth?
It's a trick question. First and foremost, it's the public's money paying for these. In many cases, DHS grants have paid for ALPRs, with local agencies name-checking terrorism and extremism to increase the odds of obtaining funds. Even when paid for out-of-pocket, it's still the public footing the bill.
The systems aren't cheap. And from what VPR (NPR Vermont) has uncovered, they're not really worth the expense. (via Digital Fourth)
Over the past five years, law enforcement agencies in Vermont have invested more than $1 million in technology that gathers millions of data points every year about the whereabouts of vehicles across the state.No one sells a city council (or the general public) on the wonders of ALPRs by highlighting how many unregistered vehicles might be ticketed or pointing out other mundane traffic enforcement benefits they might provide. Probably just as well, considering these systems have had no discernible effect in these areas.
Yet even with the millions of scans, the system has not led to many arrests or breakthroughs in major criminal investigations, and it hasn’t led to an increase in the number of tickets written for the offenses the technology is capable of detecting.
It's the "big ticket" crimes that sell ALPRs and push them past the complaints of those concerned about citizens' privacy and civil liberties. Kidnapping, auto theft, child pornographers, terrorism, etc. These are the sort of thing that put lead in legislators' collective pencils, stirring them to approve funding or sign off on grant requests, and so on. How do Vermont's ALPRs stack up against capital-C "crime?"
In the 18 months leading up to Jan. 1, 2013, the 61 license plate readers operating in the state at the time did a lot of recording. A VPR study of public information from local, state and federal law enforcement showed that during that time period, police across the state logged 7.9 million license plates and stored them in a central, statewide database along with the time and location they were scanned.Millions of plates. Five (5) crimes solved. Number of tickets issued flat.
Despite the financial investment in the systems, they were helpful in solving fewer than five crimes in 2013. The number of tickets written for driving with a suspended license and driving with an expired registration (two violations that ALPRs can detect) hasn’t gone up since the technology was introduced in mid-2009.
So, what do you do? As a legislator who approved funding for this, do you accept this as part of the learning curve or do you demand more from the technology? Do you tell the public, "We appreciate your input but feel that a literal handful of successful criminal investigations far outweighs any privacy issues or budgetary concerns"?
An interview with an officer who uses the ALPR system adds some nuance to the discussion, including the fact that law enforcement's civil liberties precautions contribute to the perceived inefficiency of the system. But underneath it all, it's viewed as just another "tool" for local law enforcement to use, albeit one that can't seem to pull its own weight. No one wants to say the equipment is non-essential or possibly redundant, but the officer interviewed (Sergeant Cram) makes this damning statement.
Despite the $25,000 tool, Cram says the majority of the Winooski Police Department’s traffic stops are still done the old-fashioned way, with officers stopping drivers for infractions like rolling through a stop sign or failing to yield at a crosswalk.The city wouldn't have ended up with one if the DHS wasn't giving them away. That's how extraneous this "tool" is. The lack of successful criminal investigations backs this up. The fact that traffic enforcement has remained stagnant even with the addition of several million plate scans per year is the final nail in the coffin.
Still, Cram says the federally-funded ALPR is a valuable tool, even though he doesn’t think the city would have put up $25,000 of its own money to buy one.
No one -- at least not in Vermont -- needs this technology. But if someone else is willing to pay, they'll take it. And they'll use it. And years down the road, they'll likely still have nothing to show for it but a massive database tracking the movement of millions of non-criminals.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alpr, crimes, license plate reader, license plates, vermont
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Free lunch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free lunch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Five isn't "fewer than five"
Seems likely that the answer is actually "somewhere between none and four", with some debate as to which of those four count. Otherwise, you'd think they'd state the actual number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Five isn't "fewer than five"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A better use of taxpayer money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Who is driving the car" is not determined by the license plate. Why would someone think an ALPR would be better at it than a red light camera?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example, I was parked in one place that was clearly marked as a no parking zone from the hours of 7am-9am yet I got ticketed even though I parked there at around 11am. It was even noted on the ticket that it was issued between the hours of 11am-12pm. Yet they expect me to play stupid and pay up?
I don't think so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This practice was brought forth to keep court cases down to only the one that really needed to be heard before a judge and keeping mistakes or things that can be logically talked out from seeing court and clogging the system/time/money of everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fighting bogus tickets
Because the poor just eat it. But hey statists, tell me again how concerned you are for the "disadvantaged".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know it sounds out-landish, but it's affecting over 60 thousand people per year all of which who have not been convicted of a crime. In other words, a cop has the legal authority to rob you fucking blind without due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs cameras when a phone app will do?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nvlsmcclient.apis
That app is for law enforcement only. When will we get an app for law abiding citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharing is Caring
"All LPR data acquired by the NVLS Mobile Companion may be shared with 10's of thousands of already registered and active Law Enforcement NVLS users. The NVLS network of LPR based information sharing has proven to be impactful for thousands of LEAs and LEOs across the country."
How about an app just for tracking law enforcement license plates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs cameras when a phone app will do?
What's this "law-abiding citizen" you are talking about? Is that a euphemism for closet criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who needs cameras when a phone app will do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What were the five crimes that were solved?
Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
Apparently, cadets with high IQs are denied completion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, that's the excuse they use, 'they might get bored and leave'? Seriously? That would be ridiculously easy to deal with, just set a cost for the training, and then have each month/year of employment with the police count towards paying that back. If they stay employed long enough(5 years perhaps), then the officer breaks even, and can leave if they want without paying anything. If they leave before that for another job, then they have to pay off what's left.
Voila, no risk of someone taking advantage of free training to pad their resume and leaving right afterwards.
Honestly, they might as well come out with the actual reason, that they don't want to employ anyone smart enough that they might start asking questions, leave the laughable excuses at home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Success unlocked
If we legislate for the edge case we will fuck everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One chance in one million and a half...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to worry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to Amerika - the Home of the Watched
And that is the actual purpose of the devices, in a nut-shell.
Run together with all the other databases from other units across Amerika, it gives somebody a really nice computer generated panorama of where everyone goes, when and for how long, every day.
The blackmail possibilities alone would pay for the equipment in five years... had the AIP actually paid for it out of their own pocket, instead of making taxpayer's foot the bill as usual.
AIP = Assholes In Power
And don't get me wrong, this is indeed being done specifically for security purposes.
The security of the 1% that is.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]