New York law enforcement officials say the data collected by Flock cameras and similar license plate readers can be invaluable in solving crimes, such as carjackings.
But civil liberties groups are pushing back, arguing that the mass information collected from the devices amounts to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. They say that safeguards must be put in place, including forcing law enforcement agencies to delete the data within 48 hours.
The dueling arguments were made at a State Assembly hearing on Tuesday, as New York lawmakers consider multiple bills that would place limits on the controversial technology.
Automated license-plate readers, or ALPRs, have been the subject of controversy, with critics raising concerns about privacy and mass surveillance. The biggest network of readers is maintained by Flock Safety, a company whose cameras — which have been frequently vandalized — feed data on vehicle location into a nationwide database that can be accessed by a wide variety of law-enforcement agencies.
“ The argument that we should keep the data just in case it becomes useful is precisely the logic of mass surveillance and incongruent with any democratic society,” Daniel Schwarz, senior privacy and technology strategist for the New York Civil Liberties Union, told lawmakers.
The “longer location records are kept, the more ways they can be misused,” Schwarz said.
Suffolk County District Attorney Raymond Tierney, who serves as president of the state District Attorneys Association, told lawmakers that the license-plate readers are “a critical tool in investigating, solving, and preventing crime.”
He used the example of a bystander spotting a particular make and model of a vehicle fleeing a crime scene.
“We'll look at the license-plate reader technology,” Tierney said. “If we see a car that matches that description, we'll continue our investigation.”
Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple testified that a 48-hour retention period for data would be too short since tips often come in after days, weeks or even months. Deleting the data after two days, or even a month, would harm law enforcement’s ability to investigate them, he said.
”Look —24 hours, 48 hours I think is just unrealistic and you might as well just get rid of the cameras altogether,” said Apple, who is president of the New York State Sheriffs Association.
A representative from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office expressed support for limiting how long the data could be held, but didn’t offer a specific retention period.
“ I think establishing limits on the amount of time data can be held is probably the best security that the data won't be misused,” said Tyler Nims, chief of the AG’s Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office.
In New York City, the New York Police Department uses license-plate readers manufactured by a company known as Leonardo Elsag, according to the agency’s use policy. Brad Weekes, a spokesperson for the NYPD, said the city has its own infrastructure for the readers — meaning the NYPD controls access to the data, which is not fed into a national database.
The NYPD has access to a national database maintained by Vigilant Technologies, but does not feed its data into it, the spokesperson said. The city does not contract with Flock.
In written testimony to the Assembly, Kevin Kane, Flock’s director of government affairs, said the company welcomes a statewide policy that sets safeguards.
“Flock’s view is that privacy and public safety are not opposing goals,” Kane wrote. “Legislation should preserve timely, case-specific investigative leads while establishing a framework for the collection, access, retention, and sharing of data.”
Assemblymember Nily Rozic, a Queens Democrat who heads the Assembly’s consumer affairs committee, said she believes there are “legitimate benefits to this technology.”
“ But as the technology becomes more widespread, we also need to take a closer look at how it operates, what information is being collected, who has access to it, how long it is retained and with whom it is shared,” she said.
