The state of Massachusetts wants to create a database that will keep a record of every vehicle that passes a police car and keep that information indefinitely. If allowed, any car that passes a police car will have its license plate scanned and placed in a database that will also record the time and location. That information will then be made available to numerous government agencies.

“What kind of a society are we creating here?” asked civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who along with the ACLU fears police abuse. “There comes a point where the surveillance is so pervasive and total that it’s a misnomer to call a society free any longer.”

The computerized scanners, known as Automatic License Plate Recognition devices, instantly check for police alerts, warrants, traffic violations and parking tickets, which cops say could be an invaluable tool in thwarting crime. The Executive Office of Public Safety has approved 27 grants totaling $500,000 to buy scanners for state police and 26 local departments. The purchases are on hold while state lawyers develop a policy for the use of a common state database all the scanners would feed.

“It’s great for canvassing an area, say after a homicide if you are looking for a particular plate,” said Chelsea police Capt. Keith Houghton. “You can plug it in, and drive up and down side streets. It sounds an alarm if you get a hit.”

How about, if you’re actually looking for a particular plate that you use, oh I don’t know, your eyes? Captain Houghton is just making an excuse to allow for sloppy and lazy police work to happen. He’s also avoiding the fact that it is extremely rare for the police to have the number of the plate of a homicide suspect.

He said Chelsea’s information is overwritten after 30 days and is not shared with the state.
Yes, for now it’s overwritten. This new database would allow that information to be kept forever.

The ACLU’s Kade Crockford said the technology, which just allows a faster version of what police do now in running plates, is less of a concern than the state’s plans to store information on average, law-abiding citizens.

“People who aren’t wanted for a crime, all of their information is stored in a database that is shared with another government agency,” Crawford said. “The potential for abuse is very big. We don’t think people who haven’t committed a crime should be tracked by law enforcement.”

And this is why such devices should never be put into use. It will be abused and misused. Innocent people will be affected by allowing a device to record everything they do even though they are just going about their day.

There is an argument that, if you are out in public, it’s fair game and you have no expectation of privacy, however, if you do not have a GPS device or a toll pass (such as EZPass) in your car, it is also reasonable that you do not expect or want to be tracked once you leave your home.

How does the 6th Amendment come into play here as the accused cannot reasonably confront his witness, in this case a camera? How can the accused prove that his accuser has not been tampered with? Time/date stamps can be changed. The camera also only sees the plate. How do you prove the owner of the car was driving?

If these pictures are in a government database, will they be available through the FOIA? If they are, what prevents abuse of the system? A stalker or abusive ex-partner or spouse could access the information. Will politicians be excused from the system? If so, how is that fair? Will divorce lawyers have access to the database?

Other questions that arise and no one seems to be looking at is where is the database to be kept? Who will be in charge of maintaining it? How will the information be pulled and transmitted for trials? Who is going to pay for the upkeep of the database? What happens when a system failure occurs?

The fact remains that, if you are not committing a crime, the police should have no need to track you and keep tabs on you. There is no need for this database except for the government to keep track of your every move.