As long-time readers will know, my annual new year’s resolution is to find a way to change my mind on something. Typically I make record of a change of mind sometime during the year and then memorialize it at the start of a new year re-upping the resolution for another year.
In this case I am revising my position on Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) such as the popular Flock cameras. Where before I was highly critical coming down more on the anti side, I am now positioned more in support with caveats.
The reason for a mid-year update is two-fold: One, this is a fairly timely topic, which will likely change more in the coming months. I would like to be out ahead of this giving me room to evolve my thinking as developments emerge, which leads into the second reason. Two, this is not so much a changing of my mind but rather a Bayesian updating changing the balance of my sentiment. I remain very cautious on the threat to liberty. However, the practical benefits along with an appropriate expectation (and protection) of privacy lead me to make room for ALPR-type surveillance. So I need to somewhat come of a firmer mindset enabling me to have a position firm enough to be changed in the future.
This Richard Hanania post frames the issue well. It also was part of my motivation for formally recognizing this change of mind.
Regarding the very important liberty concerns, misconduct by rogue police officers is not the primary concern. It is an important one, but one that we can relatively easily accommodate including, unfortunately, expecting some of this as a cost of a greater good. The primary concern is a surveillance state itself. This Cato piece by Mike Fox lays out the case well. Strong limitations on the use of camera data including public disclosure, outside auditing, and limited retention and sharing privileges are essential. Writing at Reason, Jacob Sullum illustrates further how easily this new source of information can be abused by the state and other actors. He also gives reasons to push back against the biggest hopes for how beneficial the technology can be. The Fourth Amendment cannot be ignored just because the benefit, even if real, is substantial, and the history of Fourth Amendment abuse should give us pause here.
So, I come to this point of view with reluctance and a high degree of caution. Subject to further revision, my cautious support for ALPR camera technology by the state rests on the necessity that we enter into it with eyes (and limiting laws) wide open.
“Get a warrant!” is still in effect here. Likewise, the state should not build, maintain, or share profiles of people or property that can be tied to people without probable cause, appropriate limits on use/sharing, and in most cases specific, explicit judicial approval—with all the typical limits including prohibition of general warrants.
Flock and the like are not equivalent to a police officer on every corner and block. It is equivalent to one everywhere in near perfect communication with all the others and a complete memory of history if not forced to forget. That has obvious, clear dangers. Limiting it is worth the cost of some crime. At the same time, with good limits it will have lost privacy costs as well as false positives that are a cost worth a great reduction in crime. The balancing act to me, currently, comes down slightly in favor of ALPRs . . . for now.
PS: This does not count as my official new year’s resolution fulfillment. I have other changes of mind that will be in that future post.