NY Legislators Introduce Bill That Would Seriously Curb Law Enforcement's Surveillance Collections
from the take-what-you-want-but-only-keep-what-you-need dept
A bipartisan group of New York assembly members has introduced a bill that doesn't appear to have much of a chance at becoming an actual law. But what a bill it is. If it does receive the governor's signature, it would drastically revamp how the NYPD (and other agencies) handle the massive amount of video and data they collect daily.
A bill introduced in the New York Assembly would prohibit the state from creating any database containing aggregate surveillance data including ALPR, audio, video and facial recognition records. Passage would not only protect privacy in New York; it would also put major roadblocks in front of federal surveillance programs.
Assm.Tom Abinanti (D-Greenburgh/Mt. Pleasant), along with a bipartisan coalition of six assembly members, introduced Assembly Bill 11332 (A11332) on Sept. 19. The proposed law would bar state agencies and departments, and contractors engaged in business with the state, from using any database as a repository of, a storage system for, or a means of sharing facial recognition functionality. I would also prohibit the creation of any permanent repository or storage system for aggregate license plate reader data records, aggregate audio surveillance recordings, aggregate video surveillance images, or aggregate driver license photographs.
In effect, A11332 would prohibit the creation of any comprehensive database storing surveillance data.
It's an anti-haystack bill. And law enforcement loves its haystacks. The NYPD -- believing itself to be a globetrotting intelligence agency -- loves them more than most. Law enforcement agencies have obtained massive boosts in collection power over the years, thanks to omnipresent surveillance cameras, automatic license plate readers, and cheap digital storage. Biometric data has recently been added to the mix, promising to turn dumb cameras into suspect-spotting field agents.
The tech has advanced ahead of best practices or privacy impact assessments. The new hardware is presumed legal until proven otherwise and is often obtained and deployed with minimal oversight and zero public input.
This bill doesn't outlaw the continued hoovering of data points/camera footage but it does ensure the massive amount collected will have to be quickly sorted into hay and needles by restricting stored collections to stuff pertinent to ongoing investigations.
The immediate local impact would be immense. But expect the feds to start inserting themselves into local legislating. This bill would make it impossible for federal agencies to accomplish their dream of connected, nationwide databases of license plate photos and biometric data.
Because the federal government relies heavily on partnerships and information sharing with state and local law enforcement agencies, passage of A11332 would hinder the creation of federal surveillance databases. Information that is never retained by the state cannot be shared with the feds.
If the bill passes unamended, law enforcement may be able to retain more than it should by making broad claims about everything in its collections being somehow relevant to investigations. If these legislators are serious about making this law do what it says it does, they will need to tack on some reporting requirements that will force agencies to go on the record about their data retention practices.
While it's true law enforcement agencies can't possibly know what data/footage will prove useful in future investigations, that shouldn't be used as an argument for retaining everything collected. Legitimate privacy concerns should not be subordinated to New York law enforcement's fear of missing out.
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: data, databases, new york, nypd, privacy, surveillance, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ok...
If you are one of those that think the RICH are totally corrupt and doing things in the background that remains hidden..
This would be a great thing as LONG as it works..
The Bad part is for those poor, Hungry, and so forth. There will be NO SEPARATION of Private and public.
Keeping records of Who/what went where and Why??
Cops already EDIT, their own videos daily.
Do you THINK this will be kept PRIVATE?? NOT FOR LONG..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok...
If you are one of those that think the RICH are totally corrupt and doing things in the background that remains hidden.. This would be a great thing as LONG as it works..
I'm pretty sure the rich can afford to buy some pretty ugly T-shirts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until we let you have it, which we won't
What they want is total surveillance and total control. What they will get is more of this kind of legislation, more animosity, and less control.
When they will learn is another question entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police shouldn't have unions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police unions.
I think it is possible for police unions to exist and serve to keep the wages and labor conditions of law enforcement officers reasonable without them pushing for excessive legal powers and protections from accountability.
That said, our current labor unions for law enforcement are not this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police shouldn't have unions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police Union are unlike other unions
Maybe we should stop calling them unions in favor of something more descriptive. Say organized crime syndicate or protection racketeering mob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]