Company Uses Bogus Polls And Gag Orders To Protect Image Of License Plate Scanning

from the despite-all-these-efforts,-still-rather-reviled dept

Vigilant, one of the nation's largest automatic license plate reader (ALPR) contractors, is trying to keep its public image as untarnished as possible. At this point, Vigilant has nearly 2 billion license plate records stored in its databases, which can be accessed by hundreds of law enforcement agencies.

Very recently, Vigilant took the state of Utah to court for violating its First Amendment right to take pictures and make money (photography/Citizens United, for those trying to keep score) by not allowing it to set up shop within its borders. As that news surfaced, so did a press release from the ALPR contractor which featured glowing comments from law enforcement officers who claimed the database helped track down bad guys (the baddest of the bad, too -- pedophiles) and did nothing more than anyone with a camera could do -- take photos of license plates.

Now, it has issued a very questionable poll that claims its technology has widespread support from the American public.

The survey asked seven questions, the first of which was the following: "In your opinion has license plate recognition—the ability for law enforcement to take photographs of license plates with a data and time stamp—helped to solve crimes?"

The results showed that 62 percent of respondents said yes, 10 percent said no, and 29 percent said they were unsure. What conclusion did Vigilant and Zogby draw from this result? It touted that "by a 6-1 margin, Californians say that license plate recognition technology helps police solve crimes."

That bit of exclusionary math notwithstanding (6-4 would be more accurate), it's not clear whether many of the respondents even knew what a license plate reader was or how much data these readers are capable of collecting (up to 60 plates per minute). The respondents may also have been unaware that the plate readers collect far more than photos of license plates. They also collect time/date/location data. So, when those polled responded to the following question, they may not have had any idea how easily the supposedly-innocuous ALPRs can connect a person with a license plate.

The survey also asked: "Do you agree or disagree that license plates reveal nothing about me. People who see my license plate cannot determine my name or where I live."

Roughly 24 percent of respondents said that they strongly agree; 30 percent somewhat agree; 21 percent somewhat disagree; 17 percent strongly disagree and 8 percent were not sure.

There's some iffy wording here as well -- the polling company provided no information that shows just how many agencies and entities have access to Vigilant's LPR databases along with access to other driver data from other locations, all of which is linked by license plate numbers. Even without this information, the margin of "victory" for Vigilant is slim: 54% to 46%. But Vigilant has used this flawed poll to claim that Californians support the use of LPRs.

But that's not the only way Vigilant is trying to maintain a positive PR front. The other aspect is more insidious than a small sampling of Californians answering badly-worded questions.

Vigilant Solutions, founded in 2009, claims to have the nation’s largest repository of license-plate images with nearly 2 billion records stored in its National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS). Despite the enormous implications of the database for the public, any law enforcement agency that signs up for the service is sworn to a vow of silence by the company’s terms of service.

Vigilant is clear about the reason for the secrecy: it’s to prevent customers from “cooperating” with media and calling attention to its database.

Vigilant isn't the only manufacturer of law enforcement surveillance/tracking technology to try to keep cops from talking about their shiny new tools. As you'll recall, Harris, manufacturer of the cell tower spoofer called the Stingray, made law enforcement agencies sign the same sort of non-disclosure agreement at the time of sale, one that also prohibited disclosure to not just the media, but to other government agencies as well. This worked out well for law enforcement officers, giving them a reason to skip seeking warrants… right up until all of this was made very public by a court battle.

Here's the actual wording in Vigilant's contract, as uncovered by the EFF:

You shall not create, publish, distribute, or permit any written, electronically transmitted or other form of publicity material that makes reference to LEARN [Law Enforcement Archival and Reporting Network] or this Agreement without first submitting the material to LEARN-NVLS and receiving written consent from LEARN-NVLS. This prohibition is specifically intended to prohibit users from cooperating with any media outlet to bring attention to LEARN or LEARN-NVLS. Breach this provision may result in LEARN-NVLS immediately termination of this Agreement upon notice to you [sic].

Vigilant knows the public would undoubtedly have issues with its multi-billion license plate collection and the fact that several hundred thousand new records are being generated every day. If it had any belief in its product's ability to instill public confidence it wouldn't be suing states, publishing questionable polls and swearing those with inside knowledge to secrecy. Update: After these terms became public, Vigilant has now updated the terms to make them slightly less crazy...

Law enforcement agencies know this as well, but have been willing to let their silence speak volumes. In most cases, technology like that provided by Harris and Vigilant goes into service well before the public even hears about it. Only when it's exposed are any moves made to introduce privacy protections, minimization procedures or anything else that should have been present before the tech hit the streets.

The ultimate hypocrisy of it all is that both Vigilant and law enforcement agencies defend the mass capture of license plate/location data as just gathering publicly-available information. But when it comes to their info, everything's a secret, enforced by contract if necessary. Then they go even further and claim the public information gathered is private and can't be released, even to the owner of the license plates captured. It's a one-way street of data that's disingenuous, dishonest and, above all, an insult to the very public these agencies are meant to serve.

Filed Under: gag orders, license plate scanning, polls, statistics, terms of service
Companies: vigilant

VA State Police Collected Massive Amounts Of License Plate Data By Scanning Plates At Political Rallies

from the a-complete-disdain-for-the-public dept

There are many legitimate uses for license plate data -- tracking auto theft or vehicles used in the commission of crimes. Collection of plate and location data by automatic license plate readers can be troublesome in terms of privacy, but this can usually be mitigated by the prompt disposal of data unrelated to criminal activity. Unfortunately, many states are operating license plate readers without privacy safeguards in place, or are simply building massive databases with no disposal plans for "non-hit" plate data.

Over in Virginia, state police are doing everything wrong when it comes to responsibly deploying automatic license plate readers. It's grabbing massive amounts of license plate and location data, holding onto the info for multiple years, and targeting drivers engaged in First Amendment-protected activity.

From 2010 until last spring, the Virginia State Police (VSP) maintained a massive database of license plates that allowed them to pinpoint the locations of millions of cars on particular dates and times. Even more disturbing, the agency used automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) to collect information about political activities of law-abiding people. The VSP recorded the license plates of vehicles attending President Obama’s 2009 inauguration, as well as campaign rallies for Obama and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin...

The chilling effects of the state's activity are obvious.

[B]y creating and maintaining a database of millions of license plates and targeting political activity, the VSP crossed well over the line from legitimate law enforcement to oppressive surveillance. In the cases of the campaign rallies and the 2009 inauguration, the VSP collected personally identifying information on drivers solely because those drivers were heading to a political event. These drivers were not suspected of or connected to any crime — their only offense was practicing their First Amendment rights to speak freely and assemble peacefully.

This wasn't just a local operation. Documents obtained by the ACLU via a FOIA request show the Virginia state police operated in conjunction with the FBI to utilize its database to search for "hits" against the state's collected license plate data.

Also included in the documents are two promotional slideshows from ELSAG, the license plate reader supplier. These detail the many advantages of its system, including inputs for facial recognition cameras. When not putting suspended/uninsured drivers into the same list of criminals as the DC snipers and human traffickers, the slideshow is bragging about how many records it's able to collect and retain (50 million in NYC alone without losing a single record!). It also details the exploits of Arizona DPS officer David "Army of ONE" Callister, who was able to rack up 1.1 million "reads" in 16 months.

Unsurprisingly, there's not a single slide in the deck that deals with privacy concerns or the disposal of "non-hit" data. The second deck goes even further, encouraging LEOs to "drive up the numbers" (rack up as many hits as possible). It states: "Read 1000 tags, get a stolen, read 6,000 get an arrest." Does anyone other than ELSAG and law enforcement officers like those odds?

Now, were Virginia police looking to hassle politically-minded citizens? Probably not. Targeting both sides of the political aisle indicates the department's intention wasn't necessarily to chill free speech. This looks more like a crime of opportunity. Thousands of cars headed to (or parked at) single locations was simply too much data to pass up. But the underlying effect remains: even if this wasn't politically motivated, the state police have the technology in place to target any gathering it finds undesirable.

Although it comes far too late to head off the state's collection endeavors, the State Attorney has issued a statement condemning this use of LPRs.

In a strong opinion, Cuccinelli explained that the use of ALPRs for “passive” collection of information violates Virginia’s Government Data Collection and Dissemination Act. That is, law enforcement may use ALPRs to search for specific vehicles suspected of involvement in criminal activity, but it may not simply collect and save data on thousands of vehicles for which there is no grounds for suspicion.

This statement runs directly contrary to the selling points of the LPRs, at least according to ELSAG. In its pitch, more scans equals more hits, and that's all the justification most officers are going to need. This isn't targeted technology. This is mass scanning hardware that relies on thousands of reads in order to land a direct hit, and it's backed by a company that brags about a single officer racking up over a million scans on his own. These two viewpoints clash badly, and as strongly as the AG feels about this, he's got an uphill battle against law enforcement and the camera company itself if he's going to effect any change in this mindset.

Of course, now that it's been caught holding onto all of this data for nearly three years, the state police has finally purged its database of non-hit plate data and will be disposing of unrelated data within 24 hours going forward. But the fact is that these policies should have been in place before the PD deployed the cameras. This incident does very little to alleviate fears of future abuses. Like our nation's intelligence agencies, the standard MO for deployment of law enforcement technology is to exploit the system until caught and forced to operate within belatedly-applied confines.

Filed Under: license plate, license plate scanning, police, virginia