Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) use is expanding.
ALPRs are cameras mounted on stationary objects (telephone poles, the underside of bridges, etc.) or on patrol cars. The cameras snap a photograph of every license plate that passes them by – capturing information on up to thousands of cars per minute. The devices convert each license plate number into machine-readable text and check them against agency-selected databases or manually-entered license plate numbers, providing an alert to a patrol officer whenever a match or “hit” appears.
When the ALPR system captures an image of a car, it also meta-tags each file with the GPS location and the time and date showing where and when the photograph was snapped. And often, the photograph—not just the plate number—is also stored. The system gathers this information on every car it comes in contact with, not simply those to which some flag or “hit” was attached.
As license plate location data accumulates, the system ceases to be simply a mechanism enabling efficient police work and becomes a warrantless tracking tool, enabling retroactive surveillance of millions of people.
Fortunately, Maine is one of only two states that bars the retention of data from these devises. Thank you ACLU of Maine!
Cumberland County Sheriff has facial recognition software.
A police officer uses their smartphone to snap a picture of a suspect. That photo is then turned into a numerical composite and compared against a vast database of roughly 50,000 images. Because the technology is so imprecise, it returns a long list of possible matches.
As ACLU of Maine Legal Director explained in the PPH article, “This technology is still in its infancy and at the current point it's notoriously unreliable," Zach said. “As a result, the ACLU has objected to the use and expanded use of facial recognition technology in the public sphere.”
Not only is the likelihood of a false match likely, we again have law enforcement gathering data on individuals for no legitimate purpose.
Let's at least keep weapons off domestic drones.
Drone manufacturers are considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas.
U.S. law enforcement has been expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance purposes. This type of routine aerial surveillance in American life would profoundly change the character of public life in the United States. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a "surveillance society" in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities.
Airport scanners are not as safe as TSA says.
Last but not least! From The NYT:
Most experts agree that as long as the X-ray backscatter machines are functioning properly, they expose passengers to only extremely low doses of ionizing radiation.
But some experts are less sanguine, and questions persist about the safety of using X-ray machines on such a large scale. A recent study reported that radiation from the machines can reach organs through the skin. In another report, researchers estimated that one billion X-ray backscatter scans per year would lead to perhaps 100 radiation-induced cancers in the future. The European Union has banned body scanners that use radiation; it is against the law in several European countries to X-ray people without a medical reason.
