License Plate Reader Company Says Public Records Requests For ALPR Documents Are Just Clickbait

from the price-of-freedom-is-eternal-Vigilant-open-letters dept

It turns out the most oppressed demographic in this country is the one with power, guns, unions, extra rights, and plenty of civil immunity. Law enforcement agencies around the country currently besieged by public records requests are having their fears assuaged and brows unfurrowed by the nation's largest provider of automatic license plate reader technology.

Earlier this year, the EFF and public records clearinghouse MuckRock joined forces to file approximately 1,000 public records requests with agencies partnering with Vigilant. Apparently this influx of up to one additional records request per agency has pushed law enforcement to its limits. Vigilant Solutions has stepped up to let law enforcement officers know it has their back during this ongoing national nightmare. (h/t Dave Maass, Camille Fassett)

Dear Vigilant Solutions Customer,

We know you are experiencing an onslaught of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Public Records Act (PRA) requests from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and MuckRock regarding your use of our license plate reader (LPR) technology. We write this letter to let you know, quite simply, we support you and are here for you.

Just to be clear, this "onslaught" is composed of one request per law enforcement agency. There's no point in doubling up on requests since that would just waste time and resources. There may be some inadvertent double filings, but that would only mean some agencies have seen more than one request for Vigilant documents. In no case are any agencies being targeted with mass duplicated requests. So, this "onslaught" might be cumulative in total, but it basically comes down to a 1/1 ratio of requests/agencies.

From there, Vigilant's letter [PDF] devolves into talking points about the great law enforcement work being done with its passive collection systems. It highlights a handful of nonspecific success stories -- stories it claims the EFF and MuckRock ignore -- as justification for 24/7 gathering of license plate/location data. Again, this poor attempt to slam both entities as anti-law enforcement fails. No one disputes ALPRs help catch criminals. The problem is they're often put into place with zero public comment, zero discussion by public officials, zero guidelines for data gathering and retention, and with an eye on law enforcement efficiency above everything else.

The letter tries to mock EFF as being noble fools for pointing out how many agencies have access to Vigilant plate data.

The EFF has noted that California agencies are sharing with the U.S. Forest Service, universities on the East Coast, and airports in Tennessee. EFF is apparently unaware that criminals travel across state lines. Perhaps these writers have not read the countless stories about crimes committed on college campuses, at airports and even in National Parks.

This willfully ignores the reason the EFF points out the long list of agencies with access to data. It's not that the EFF doesn't know suspected criminals move around the country or that criminal acts can occur anywhere. It's that hundreds of agencies are dipping into this data without clear, concise guidance on what they can access and how they can use it. For some agencies not tasked with law enforcement, it's unclear why they're even able to pull data from a database supposedly created for law enforcement use only.

But the most ridiculous part of the letter is its ending, in which Vigilant claims the EFF and MuckRock are doing this for the clicks.

The real impetus behind this campaign is so EFF and MuckRock can capitalize on the most well-known emotional trigger for fundraising: Fear. Their aim is to paint a false picture of sharing LPR data by leading their readers to believe it is reckless, unrestricted and used to track individuals. In short, they are attempting to scare individuals into hitting one of the countless "Contribute" and "Donate" buttons on their website.

Wow. Way to stick it to a couple of nonprofits, Vigilant. The "doing it for money/eyeballs/ad revenue/etc." argument is a full-throated admission you can't find anything legitimate to complain about. Vigilant sure seems defensive for an entity that believes it's nothing but a net gain for public safety. This letter is hilarious -- an admission Vigilant can be put on the defensive by a steady trickle of public records requests from around the nation.

It's also kind of hypocritical. Vigilant has brought lawsuits against states claiming their anti-ALPR laws violated the company's First Amendment right to collect license plate photographs en masse. Now, it's reaching out to law enforcement agencies to let them know Vigilant will be there for them while citizens exercise their First Amendment rights by requesting a much smaller quantity of public records. This open letter of Vigilant's is terrible optics. Either it shows Vigilant can be put on the defensive by people seeking information about its products, or it believes law enforcement officers are feeling threatened by the incremental increase in FOIA paperwork. Either way, it's a terrible look and a terrible response.

Filed Under: alpr, foia, law enforcement, license plate readers, police departments, public records, transparency
Companies: eff, muckrock, vigilant solutions

Ferguson Debacle Results In Armored Vehicles Being Removed From Two California Police Departments

from the a-tale-of-two-PDs dept

Today's militarized policeman often feels naked without the protection of mine-resistant vehicles, despite very little evidence that such vehicles are necessary to handle the deadly (or is it?) rigors of police work. Citizens, however, aren't so sure they like seeing their law enforcement officers rolling out like they're keeping the peace in the middle of Baghdad.

Even better, some representatives are finally starting to feel the same way. Sure, the vehicles and other militarized accoutrements may come cheap, thanks to DHS grants, but even deep, deep discounts aren't enough to justify picking these up simply because the US government has made them available.

Two law enforcement agencies will be returning their MRAPs to Uncle Sam, with the announcements arriving almost simultaneously.

Davis, Calif., city officials have directed the police department to return a surplus U.S. military armored vehicle to the federal government after residents, citing images seen during protests in Ferguson, Mo., expressed fears of militarization.

The Davis Police Department now has 60 days to get rid of a $689,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicle, which police acquired through a U.S. Defense Department program, and must consider other rescue vehicle options.

Councilman Robb Davis explained the rationale behind the decision:

"I am opposed to the investments that are made and then the results of those investments flowed back to our community in ways that may not hurt our community in a physical sense by are destructive in terms of not increasing our security but increasing our anxiety." Councilman Robb Davis said at a council meeting Tuesday.

The public's growing unease with the weaponry amassed via the Pentagon's 1033 program has been hurtling towards critical mass in recent weeks, thanks to the heavy-handed tactics and military gear used by police officers in response to protests in Ferguson, MO. The police cited armored vehicles' life-saving qualities in two separate instances, but that wasn't enough to sway the council's vote. Perhaps the worst part (for the cops) is the fact that they didn't even get a chance to take their new armored toy for a spin.

The Davis Police Department took possession of the free vehicle two weeks ago…

It still had that new 1033 acquisition smell. What a shame.

Over in San Jose, CA, it's a completely different story. Rather than having an MRAP pried from law enforcement's clutches by city reps, the San Jose Police Department gave it up voluntarily to protect its relationship with the people it serves.

San Jose police spokeswoman Sgt. Heather Randol told KCBS the decision was made based on concerns for potential damage to the department’s image and community relationships.

“We want to keep their trust. We don’t want them to feel we are going off on another path with our police department,” she said. “We want them to feel comfortable about the tools that we use.”

Kudos to the SJPD. Not many police departments offer this sort of statement as lip service, much less with actions to back it up. Notice that it's San Jose, with a population of nearly 1 million and a violent crime rate right at the national average, that is voluntarily giving up its armored vehicle. Davis (pop. 66,000) has a violent crime rate that's roughly half of San Jose's, and its MRAP had to be taken away from it by the city government. (Quick fact: San Jose had 35 murders in 2012. Davis had 4... in the last decade.) Who would you rather be policed by? Those who know that combating serious crime doesn't require the use of shock-and-awe vehicles or those who think that officer safety is more important than maintaining a positive relationship with their community?

Filed Under: 1033, armored vehicles, california, davis, dhs, law enforcement, militarization, militarized police, mrap, police, police departments, san jose

UK Police Department Twitter Accounts Offer FREE iPads... With A Catch

from the please-tell-me-someone-fell-for-this dept

Normally, if someone were to offer you a FREE iPad or the like unsolicited via the interweb, you'd either be a) reasonably suspicious or b) consulting various anti-malware forums in hopes of regaining control of your computer/Facebook account/credit history. But what if that offer were to come from a more respectable source -- say, an official police Twitter account? If you answered "b" then you're probably taking stock of your life and wondering if leading a life of crime is really for you.

Police in Leicester did exactly that, tweeting out this tantalizing offer to the public a few days ago.

Not a scam: If you've committed a burglary in the #Leicester area within the last week - come to our #police station & claim a FREE iPad.

— Leicester Police (@CityCentreLPU) January 6, 2013

"Not a scam: If you've committed a burglary in the #Leicester area within the last week - come to our #police station & claim a FREE iPad."

While it's doubtful this police department snagged any criminals with this playful tweet (although I'm holding out hope that it will), it did manage to catch that attention of another police department, who accused the Leicester police of tweet theft.

.@citycentrelpu – we need to talk to you about a tweet theft earlier today, “You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your....

— Solihull Police (@SolihullPolice) January 6, 2013

.@CityCentreLPU – we need to talk to you about a tweet theft earlier today, “You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your....

The Solihull Police had apparently made the same offer to gullible criminals earlier that day, but had only received 18 retweets as compared to the 4,000 received by Leicester's purloined tweet. An apology was extended and both police departments went back to work, providing a mixture of the useful and the comical, with Solihull PD helping reunite lost cannabis with its owner and the Leicester Police performing field sobriety tests via Twitter.

I know we tend to focus on the negative side of the law enforcement community so it's nice to see little exchanges like this coming from official channels. It goes a long way towards humanizing these two departments, keeping these accounts from turning into faceless department bullhorns dispensing nothing but blotter activity and talking points.

Filed Under: communications, police departments, social media, uk