New Hampshire Only State to Ban Use of Automatic License Plate Readers by Law Enforcement

[Keith and stuff]

New Hampshire Only State to Ban Use of Automatic License Plate Readers by Law Enforcement
Posted on May 13, 2013 by Keith DeSantis
http://www.nhforliberty.com/new-hampshire-only-state-to-ban-use-of-automatic-license-plate-readers-by-law-enforcement/


According to an article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, New Hampshire is the only state to ban use of Automatic License Plate Readers by law enforcement.

EFF writes:
In light of privacy concerns, states including Maine, New Jersey, and Virginia have limited the use of ALPRs, and New Hampshire has banned them outright. Even the International Association of Chiefs of Police (http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=N%2BE2wvY%2F1QU%3D&tabid=87) has issued a report recognizing that “recording driving habits” could raise First Amendment concerns because cameras could record “vehicles parked at addiction-counseling meetings, doctors’ offices, health clinics, or even staging areas for political protests.”

Read the full article at EFF here (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/alpr)

[Keith and stuff]

Here is the EFF article.


May 6, 2013 | By Jennifer Lynch
Automated License Plate Readers Threaten Our Privacy
Co-Authored with Peter Bibring, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/alpr

https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/images_insert/alpr_monitor.jpg


Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using sophisticated cameras, called “automated license plate readers” or ALPR, to scan and record the license plates of millions of cars across the country. These cameras, mounted on top of patrol cars and on city streets, can scan up to 1,800 license plate per minute, day or night, allowing one squad car to record more than 14,000 plates during the course of a single shift.

Photographing a single license plate one time on a public city street may not seem problematic, but when that data is put into a database, combined with other scans of that same plate on other city streets, and stored forever, it can become very revealing. Information about your location over time can show not only where you live and work, but your political and religious beliefs, your social and sexual habits, your visits to the doctor, and your associations with others. And, according to recent research reported in Nature, it’s possible to identify 95% of individuals with as few as four randomly selected geospatial datapoints (location + time), making location data the ultimate biometric identifier.

To better gauge the real threat to privacy posed by ALPR, EFF and the ACLU of Southern California asked LAPD and LASD for information on their systems, including their policies on retaining and sharing information and all the license plate data each department collected over the course of a single week in 2012. After both agencies refused to release most of the records we asked for, we sued. We hope to get access to this data, both to show just how much data the agencies are collecting and how revealing it can be.

ALPRs are often touted as an easy way to find stolen cars — the system checks a scanned plate against a database of stolen or wanted cars and can instantly identify a hit, allowing officers to set up a sting to recover the car and catch the thief. But even when there’s no match in the database and no reason to think a car is stolen or involved in a crime, police keep the data. According to the LA Weekly, LAPD and LASD together already have collected more than 160 million “data points” (license plates plus time, date, and exact location) in the greater LA area—that’s more than 20 hits for each of the more than 7 million vehicles registered in L.A. County. That’s a ton of data, but it’s not all — law enforcement officers also have access to private databases containing hundreds of millions of plates and their coordinates collected by “repo” men.

ALPR Monitor Inside Police CarLaw enforcement agencies claim that ALPR systems are no different from an officer recording license plate, time and location information by hand. They also argue the data doesn’t warrant any privacy protections because we drive our cars around in public. However, as five justices of the Supreme Court recognized last year in US v. Jones, a case involving GPS tracking, the ease of data collection and the low cost of data storage make technological surveillance solutions such as GPS or ALPR very different from techniques used in the past.

Police are open about their desire to record the movements of every car in case it might one day prove valuable. In 2008, LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck (then the agency’s chief of detectives) told GovTech Magazine that ALPRs have “unlimited potential” as an investigative tool. “It’s always going to be great for the black-and-white to be driving down the street and find stolen cars rolling around . . . . But the real value comes from the long-term investigative uses of being able to track vehicles—where they’ve been and what they've been doing—and tie that to crimes that have occurred or that will occur.” But amassing data on the movements of law-abiding residents poses a real threat to privacy, while the benefit to public safety is speculative, at best.

In light of privacy concerns, states including Maine, New Jersey, and Virginia have limited the use of ALPRs, and New Hampshire has banned them outright. Even the International Association of Chiefs of Police has issued a report recognizing that “recording driving habits” could raise First Amendment concerns because cameras could record “vehicles parked at addiction-counseling meetings, doctors' offices, health clinics, or even staging areas for political protests.”

But even if ALPRs are permitted, there are still common-sense limits that can allow the public safety benefits of ALPRs while preventing the wholesale tracking of every resident’s movements. Police can and should treat location information from ALPRs like other sensitive information — they should retain it no longer than necessary to determine if it might be relevant to a crime, and should get a warrant to keep it any longer. They should limit who can access it and who they can share it with. And they should put oversight in place to ensure these limits are followed.

Unfortunately, efforts to impose reasonable limits on ALPR tracking in California have failed so far. Last year, legislation that would have limited private and law enforcement retention of ALPR data to 60 days—a limit currently in effect for the California Highway Patrol — and restricted sharing between law enforcement and private companies failed after vigorous opposition from law enforcement. In California, law enforcement agencies remain free to set their own policies on the use and retention of ALPR data, or to have no policy at all.

Some have asked why we would seek public disclosure of the actual license plate data collected by the police—location-based data that we think is private. But we asked specifically for a narrow slice of data — just a week’s worth — to demonstrate how invasive the technology is. Having the data will allow us to see how frequently some plates have been scanned; where and when, specifically, the cops are scanning plates; and just how many plates can be collected in a large metropolitan area over the course of a single week. Actual data will reveal whether ALPRs are deployed primarily in particular areas of Los Angeles and whether some communities might therefore be much more heavily tracked than others. If this data is too private to give a week’s worth to the public to help inform us how the technology is being used, then isn’t it too private to let the police amass years’ worth of data without a warrant?

After the Boston Marathon bombings, many have argued that the government should take advantage of surveillance technology to collect more data rather than less. But we should not so readily give up the very freedoms that terrorists seek to destroy. We should recognize just how revealing ALPR data is and not be afraid to push our police and legislators for sensible limits to protect our basic right to privacy.

Click on the article link anyway if you want to see all of the sources. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/alpr

[Keith and stuff]

Note, while the NH ban is substantially stronger than restrictions in other states, and even also bans the public from using such devices, there are some intentional holes in the law such as when a child is abducted and police know the license plate number of the suspect. Also note that the proposed penalty for violating the law is stronger for government agencies than for the general public.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0482.htm



New Hampshire
New Hampshire generally bans surveillance on highways, including the use of ALPR systems (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 236:130). This prohibition includes the state as well as private citizens.

The New Hampshire law does allow for certain exceptions, including certain investigatory, traffic, and security purposes.
Any person violating these provisions is guilty of a violation, which is punishable by up to a $1,000 fine. Other entities violating these provisions are guilty of a misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a $1,200 fine.

Other states:


Maine
Maine only allows its departments of Transportation and Public Safety and law enforcement agencies to use ALPR systems for certain public safety purposes (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 29-A, § 2117-A).

The law provides that the data that is collected is confidential and can only to be used by law enforcement in carrying out its duties. Furthermore, the data collected or retained may not be stored for more than 21 days.

A violator is guilty of a class E crime, which is punishable by up to six months imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

New Jersey
Through a New Jersey Attorney General Directive, law enforcement in the state must adhere to certain guidelines (http://www.state.nj.us/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/Dir-2010-5-LicensePlateReadersl-120310.pdf).

These guidelines include limitations on when ALPR systems may be deployed, used, and who is qualified for such use. In addition, each department that uses an ALPR system must keep a record of when and where it was deployed, if it was mobile or fixed, and if any data was transferred or stored.

The guidelines also require all records of ALPR activity to be maintained for five years and be readily accessible for audit. After the five years, the data must be purged from the system.

Virgina
http://hamptonroads.com/files/imagecache/story_photo_main/files/images/892581000.jpg
There is somewhat limited use thanks to an opinion issued be Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Read about it.
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/03/mixed-reactions-over-police-licenseplate-cameras

[youngbuck]

Nice, makes NH even more appealing!

[tsai3904]

My region's public radio just did a 30 min segment on this today. One city's police department is collecting license plate data (date, time, location, etc) and storing it indefinitely.

I see a problem with the police holding the information indefinitely but I don't see a problem with the technology itself. This comes down to what the expectation of privacy is on a public road. Is it lawful for a private person to use the technology to capture vehicle data on public roads?

[Keith and stuff]

Is it lawful for a private person to use the technology to capture vehicle data on public roads?

It is not lawful in New Hampshire. It is a violation punishable by up to a $1,000 fine.

You have a point. There is the liberty vs. privacy debate. Liberty folks come down on different sides of it. In NH, people tend to prefer privacy, even if that slightly limits liberty (I'm not speaking of liberty folks in NH, I mean, people in general). It's partly why NH doesn't require auto insurance, adult seat belt use, and why NH bans traffic cameras that issue tickets. It's also why you have to at least inform a party (unless the party is a government worker performing a government duty in an area where there is little expectation of privacy) if you are going to audio record them. That issue in particular has gotten a couple liberty activists in NH in legal trouble.

[tsai3904]

It is not lawful in New Hampshire. It is a violation punishable by up to a $1,000 fine.

You have a point. There is the liberty vs. privacy debate. Liberty folks come down on different sides of it.

Yea I would like to see a debate on this. I guess my question is "should it be lawful"? Should I be free to take pictures of what I want on public roads? Is there a difference between taking one picture or 1,000 pictures an hour?

[iheartliberty]

[QUOTE=Keith and stuff;5097252]Note, while the NH ban is substantially stronger than restrictions in other states, and even also bans the public from using such devices, there are some intentional holes in the law such as when a child is abducted and police know the license plate number of the suspect. Also note that the proposed penalty for violating the law is more sever for government agencies than for the general public.


I attended one of these hearings, where it became clear that there's a single major company in this market and they are using the legislatures across the country to capture the entire market. When asked about some of the details about how the databases and the scanners operate, it became obvious that these devices are the fast path to a true police state. That's not surprising, because after all it's the police who are the consumers. The regular citizenry aren't even considered, except for the pesky nuisance of having to comply with whatever weak state and federal privacy laws there are.

Getting ALPRs is a line, that once crossed, is very hard to cross back over.

[Keith and stuff]

I attended one of these hearings, where it became clear that there's a single major company in this market and they are using the legislatures across the country to capture the entire market. When asked about some of the details about how the databases and the scanners operate, it became obvious that these devices are the fast path to a true police state. That's not surprising, because after all it's the police who are the consumers. The regular citizenry aren't even considered, except for the pesky nuisance of having to comply with whatever weak state and federal privacy laws there are.

Getting ALPRs is a line, that once crossed, is very hard to cross back over.

Where was this hearing? This seems like a very important issue to you. You have been here for a while but this is your first post. Thanks for joining the conversation and sharing your opinion on this matter. Do you know more about this company and what it is trying to do? Does it perhaps work for the NSA :(

[Anti Federalist]

My region's public radio just did a 30 min segment on this today. One city's police department is collecting license plate data (date, time, location, etc) and storing it indefinitely.

I see a problem with the police holding the information indefinitely but I don't see a problem with the technology itself. This comes down to what the expectation of privacy is on a public road. Is it lawful for a private person to use the technology to capture vehicle data on public roads?

No one ever does...and that's why we live in The Matrix.

Technology is not value neutral.

There are some technologies that are just awful, that have no redeeming qualities, (or have qualities so limited and rare that they are more than offset by the negatives) and should be smashed, if I had my way.

[tsai3904]

There are some technologies that are just awful, that have no redeeming qualities, (or have qualities so limited and rare that they are more than offset by the negatives) and should be smashed, if I had my way.

I agree that there are some creepy technologies out there, but is that a reason to use the force of government to prevent someone from inventing the technology, building it, and profiting off his work?

[Anti Federalist]

Yea I would like to see a debate on this. I guess my question is "should it be lawful"? Should I be free to take pictures of what I want on public roads? Is there a difference between taking one picture or 1,000 pictures an hour?

No.

The ramifications of what can be done with a picture of my property or my person are just horrendous.

You do not have a right to take a picture of any it, without my consent.

You may not fly satelites over my home and take pictures.

You may not fly drones over my home and take pictures.

You may not take pictures of me and post them to the government data mine also known as FarceBook.

No, no, no...

[Anti Federalist]

I agree that there are some creepy technologies out there, but is that a reason to use the force of government to prevent someone from inventing the technology, building it, and profiting off his work?

If government only exists to protect individual rights, then yes, when that technology can just shred and demolish individual liberty, by all means, shut it down.

[tsai3904]

You do not have a right to take a picture of any it, without my consent.

Can you expand on this? You don't think anyone can capture a picture of another person in public without that person's consent? What should the penalty be if it does happen without that person's consent?

[Keith and stuff]

You may not fly satelites over my home and take pictures.

You may not fly drones over my home and take pictures.

No, no, no...
You sound like a typical juror in the New Hampshire vs. Doug Darrell case. Doug grow medical marijuana on his property, lots of it. The Belknap County, New Hampshire jury unanimously acquitted Doug Darrell in part because they were so disgusted that his marijuana plants were spotted by a MA National Guard helicopter flying over his property in Barnstead, New Hampshire. I know this because 1 of the jurors said so.

Stop the government police state. You don't need to see our records. You don't need to see our home. You don't need to see anything. Government agents, get the hell out.

[muzzled dogg]

nice

[Anti Federalist]

Can you expand on this? You don't think anyone can capture a picture of another person in public without that person's consent? What should the penalty be if it does happen without that person's consent?

No, I do not.

The ramifications to my privacy are extreme.

Civil liability, I should be able to sue your pants off, if a picture of me or my property, makes it into a database without my consent.

Also, as restitution, the burden would be on the photo taker to remove it from any databases.

[Anti Federalist]

Hear hear.


You sound like a typical juror in the New Hampshire vs. Doug Darrell case. Doug grow medical marijuana on his property, lots of it. The Belknap County, New Hampshire jury unanimously acquitted Doug Darrell in part because they were so disgusted that his marijuana plants were spotted by a MA National Guard helicopter flying over his property in Barnstead, New Hampshire. I know this because 1 of the jurors said so.

Stop the government police state. You don't need to see our records. You don't need to see our home. You don't need to see anything. Government agents, get the hell out.

[tsai3904]

Civil liability, I should be able to sue your pants off, if a picture of me or my property, makes it into a database without my consent.

I'm not talking about putting a picture of you on a database or Facebook. I'm just talking about taking a picture in public and you happen to be in the picture. You think the person taking the picture should face civil liability?

What about if I have a security camera outside my door and it captures people walking by the sidewalk not on my property? Should that not be allowed?

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not talking about putting a picture of you on a database or Facebook. I'm just talking about taking a picture in public and you happen to be in the picture. You think the person taking the picture should face civil liability?[/img]

If you keep it to yourself, no.

What about if I have a security camera outside my door and it captures people walking by the sidewalk not on my property? Should that not be allowed?

No, that should not be allowed, especially now, as more and more police departments tie into the surveillance grid.

Never should be used in court to convict you and makes you liable if it finds its way into a database.

[enhanced_deficit]

Another first for NH , impressive.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

My region's public radio just did a 30 min segment on this today. One city's police department is collecting license plate data (date, time, location, etc) and storing it indefinitely.

I see a problem with the police holding the information indefinitely but I don't see a problem with the technology itself. This comes down to what the expectation of privacy is on a public road. Is it lawful for a private person to use the technology to capture vehicle data on public roads?

Wow that's downright disturbing. Tracking where you are each time the license plate is scanned? It won't be long until it's mandatory for government boxes to be installed into automobiles so they can see where your automobile is in real time.

[Keith and stuff]

And now there is a bill to create license plate readers in NH. It finally made it out of Committee and is set to be voted on by the full House on January 8th.

The most pro-liberty state legislator in the nation just had an op-ed in the NH newspaper. Hopefully some people in NH read it and use when contacting NH House critters. If you know anyone in NH, please spread the word!

How to contact the NH House critters? Phone numbers and emails are located here. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wml.aspx
And here's the actual bill if you want to track it's progress and read it. If passed as amended, it would be the most restrictive license plate reader state law, but it's no where near good enough for me! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=282&sy=2013&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2013&txtbillnumber=hb675

January 03. 2014 12:40AM
Another View - Mark Warden: Big Brother surveillance doesn’t belong in NH
MARK WARDEN
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140103/OPINION02/140109823

The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, ACLU and Boston Police have come out against the use of this tech.


LEGISLATION IS pending in the New Hampshire House to allow police departments to acquire automated license plate readers (ALPR or LPR) in order to increase by magnitude the number of vehicles that can be monitored on local streets near you.

While generally we want law enforcement to have the latest gadgets to track criminals, this technology has far too much potential for misuse and abuse by authorities, raising concerns about civil liberties and invasion of privacy.

There are numerous problems with the use of ALPR, starting with the fact that their use distracts police officers from more productive use of their time, such as investigating crimes against persons or property instead of trolling parking lots and city streets. Community policing and alert vigilance by officers are far better ways to reduce crime and find stolen vehicles.

There is also the simple problem of economics: these automatic readers cost $4,000-$10,000 each. Those resources could be much better invested in more pressing needs. Even though some agencies receive them gratis through federal grants, it ultimately is taxpayer money being spent on expensive toys with questionable utility.

If the New Hampshire Legislature is seriously concerned about “jobs and the economy,” it should dispatch all requests for such frivolous spending. LPRs will not improve the economy or increase the number of productive jobs in this state. Given the concern people have about the rapidly increasing size and cost of government, the priority should be to invest limited public funds in improving opportunities for people by creating a healthier job climate and maintaining infrastructure.

There are many problems with collection and storage of data mined by ALPR. In fact, the Boston Police Department (BPD) recently stopped its use of license plate readers following an investigation into their use by the investigative journalism organization MuckRock and the Boston Globe. It has been shown that there is no way to guarantee that the data will not be misused or improperly stored. Further, the databases against which readers match plate numbers come from all 50 states and the federal government, so it is impossible for our state authorities to verify the accuracy of that data.

Use of the readers will lead to wide inconvenience to New Hampshire motorists. Because a match by the system will alert an officer to the vehicle without reference to the driver, there will be a large increase in people being improperly stopped and interrogated. Imagine if you were the innocent spouse or daughter or elderly father of somebody with too many unpaid parking tickets being pulled over, delayed and questioned, even though you had nothing to do with the underlying reason for the stop. This is a clear violation of civil liberties.

The American Civil Liberties Union has come out against ALPR in a number of position papers. One major concern with the readers, the ACLU said, is that the scans could be used by police to track innocent people, or target groups based on their ethnic background or political beliefs. The system could be used to target personal foes or others who criticize local officials.

Many folks question the constitutionality of these broad-brush, dragnet-style license plate searches. The question of whether mass surveillance without a warrant is constitutional is presently working its way through federal courts and is expected at the U.S. Supreme Court within a year or two. Federal judges have recently disagreed on the issue with respect to warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency and other government agencies.

People have a right to travel freely without being monitored and surveilled by the state. Wholesale tracking of residents’ movements is wholly offensive in a free society. It’s time to push back against Big Brother and stand up for the freedoms that have so long been cherished in this state. If we are to slow the inexorable march towards an Orwellian future, people must speak out and be heard. Our silence will only be interpreted as slavish acquiescence by those who thirst for power and control.

Mark Warden is a Republican state representative from Manchester who serves on the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

[Keith and stuff]

The bill to allow police to use automatic license plate scanners in New Hampshire failed. Going strong with the ban since 2007 :)

The Sunday edition of the Albany, New York newspaper covered the issue.

The article starts as the top story on the cover of the paper.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/1514457_10152395473674286_5625037384425642257_n.jp g

The article continues on later in section A. About New Hampshire it says "Earlier this year, lawmakers in libertarian-minded New Hampshire refused to legalize police use of scanners."
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10313453_10152395474159286_6969178526446935570_n.j pg

This likely would not have happened without the support of free staters.


BREAKING: NH House Votes 250-97 to Kill License Plate Scanners Bill!
http://freekeene.com/2014/01/15/breaking-nh-house-votes-250-97-to-kill-license-plate-scanners-bill/