Law enforcement agencies across the country are increasingly relying on spying technologies.Automated license plate readers(ALPR),Cell-site simulatorsThe text provided does not contain enough information to complete a translation. Please provide the full content in order to generate an accurate English translation.Facial recognition technology is being implemented in various sectors, raising concerns about privacy and data security. In Brazil, for instance, the use of facial recognition by the police has sparked debates, with advocates arguing for its efficiency in crime prevention and identification, while critics highlight potential abuses and the need for stricter regulations.
Recent studies suggest that facial recognition algorithms can exhibit bias, especially when trained on limited or biased datasets. This issue has led to calls for more diverse and representative data collection methods to ensure fairness and accuracy.
As the technology advances, ethical considerations and regulatory frameworks become increasingly important to address the challenges and ensure the responsible use of facial recognition.These technologies, including but not limited to facial recognition, are causing an uproar in many communities, as people rightfully worry about the threat they pose to civil rights and civil liberties.
Some authorities are addressing these concerns by attempting to conceal their actions. Police departments are instructing officers not to mention Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) systems when stopping vehicles and to hide their use of ALPRs to avoid public records requests from citizens. Concealing the use of unpopular surveillance tools is not new to law enforcement—officers have been doing this for years—but it remains just as wrong today as it was 20 years ago.
These practices prevent the public from knowing and questioning how agencies are spending taxpayer dollars on spying technologies and holding them accountable. This is especially concerning when many towns are signing contracts with Flock and other ALPR vendors with little to no public oversight. The practice also violates disclosure obligations, enables cops and prosecutors to conceal their tactics from judges, and deprives defendants of the ability to challenge the use of evidence gathered by spy tech from being used against them.
404 Media recentlyThe text: "revealed"In its usage policy for Flock ALPR cameras, one county in Iowa instructs police to keep them secret when detaining individuals."DO NOT MENTION ALPR USE TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE VEHICLE," the policy document reads. "DO NOT MENTION ALPR USE IN YOUR REPORT OR COMPLAINT UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." If writing a report about an incident, police are told to say they used "county resources" in making a stop instead of acknowledging use of ALPRs.
In Houston, police officers are likewise instructed tobe as vague as permissibleAbout why they are using Flock because the searches they run on Flock’s surveillance system could be obtained via public records requests.
There is growing public alarm about the threat to civil liberties posed by ALPR cameras and reports of police abusing the tech.Using it to spy on their exesSome cities have the cameras.Covered upText: "And others are..." (Incomplete sentence, original text did not provide a complete thought or subject for translation.)Cancelling:
The text provided is only a single word, "cancelling", which is the gerund form of the verb "cancel" in Portuguese. There is no additional context or journalistic content to translate.Their use of ALPR networks. Two states have recently...Stepped backFrom ALPRs. This trend is certainly not overlooked by law enforcement agencies. Hiding the fact that they're using ALPRs from Flock and other vendors is a way to evade scrutiny and bad publicity.
But law enforcement and their spy tech vendors have kept people in the dark about the surveillance technologies aimed at them for decades, predating the Flock backlash. For example, AT&T developed a powerful phone surveillance tool for police called Hemisphere in the mid-2000s, andthe company required agenciesnot to use evidence gathered by Hemisphere in court unless there was no other admissible evidence. If evidence obtained through Hemisphere was used, police were required to recreate it through a traditional subpoena, a process they calledparallel construction.We termed it "evidence laundering."
Similarly, police and prosecutors have taken extensive measures to conceal from the public and courts their use of cell site simulators, also known as stingrays. Police have employed these devices, which trick cell phones into connecting to them instead of phone towers to locate suspects, to obtain people's location data without a warrant bydeceptively obtainingBasic pen register orders from courts. Pen register orders are for obtaining call log data and police do not need to demonstrate probable cause to obtain one.
In Baltimore, for instance, a judge determined that law enforcement had utilized a standard pen register order to intentionally conceal its use of a Stingray from the court, in breach of its legal disclosure obligations, resulting in a landmark 2015 privacy ruling that police require a warrant to employ the device.This, however, did not prevent police from continuing to attempt to mislead courts and defense attorneys when using stingrays.Prosecutors have accepted plea agreements to conceal their use of cell-site simulators and have even gone as far as to...
(The sentence is incomplete in the original text, so it is translated as it stands.)(No complete sentence, so no translation provided.)Prosecutors have accepted plea deals.Prosecutors have accepted plea deals to hide their use of cell-site simulators and have even... (The sentence is cut off, so the translation ends here.)Dropped casesRather than reveal information about their use of the technology, U.S. Marshals haveTransported files hundreds of milesTo obstruct public records requests.
Fortunately, our commitment to shedding light on the use of surveillance technology is just as strong, if not stronger, than law enforcement's effort to hide it. We're collaborating with privacy advocates and community groups to raise awareness about existing and emerging spy tools that threaten civil liberties, and we're encouraging policymakers and lawmakers to do more to restrict warrantless mass surveillance and stop it before it takes hold.
If you're curious about whether your local police have contracts for ALPRS or other surveillance technologies, you can search EFF'sSurveillance Atlas.