Loss of Privacy

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.

Beginning January 1st, residents of Massachusetts will have to give up a little bit more privacy in the state’s efforts to combat misuse of prescription drugs.

Under a law passed last summer, they will have to show a driver’s license or another approved ID before the druggist can give them prescriptions ranging from addictive opiates to certain medicines for diarrhea. Their purchases will be recorded in a massive database that will include their names, addresses and the kinds and amount of pills they take.

The law is similar to legislation passed in 33 states and being initiated in another 10 states. Studies suggest the programs can help combat prescription drug abuse, but the law has other consequences that play against the national debate about the size and reach of government.

All of the information is stored in a database overseen by DPH, whose job it is to filter the information and look for inconsistencies.

Margaret Clapp, chief of pharmacy at Massachusetts General Hospital, said the new law triples to quadruples the amount of data collected by the state.

It will require more clerical work for doctors and druggists as the number of prescriptions monitored expands from the current 3.5 million a year to an estimated range of nine to 11 million.

Did you catch that? 9 to 11 million prescriptions will be monitored in the state of Massachusetts alone. This law is said to be able to keep track of people who are “doctor shopping” as well as doctors who are over prescribing medications.

The new law, which some pharmacy chains are already following ahead of the Jan. 1 implementation date, requires reporting on all prescription drugs listed under federal drug Schedules III through V, which include scores of more commonly prescribed drugs.

While pharmacists worry that they will feel the wrath of angry customers who have no idea that the law even exists, the law isn’t mandatory, creating more inconsistencies in the system.

Doctors and pharmacists aren’t required to consult the database.

The medical society also is concerned about confidentiality, particularly if police can access the information. Ryder worries that patients who take medications for mental health treatment are especially vulnerable in that regard.

According to the DPH regulations, access to the database will be limited to “authorized and authenticated individuals.” Law enforcement agencies will be able to request data involving a criminal investigation or prosecution. Such requests will be made to the attorney general, the state police or the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

So, essentially, this law is useless. It’s meant to track millions of prescriptions and quadruple the current database, but isn’t required. When something is suspicious, law enforcement still need to access the data through an intermediary and, likely, a warrant. How exactly does that change anything and how does it help abuse of prescription medications?

It is difficult to see how this law does anything other than force individuals to show approved ID and link their ID to their medications. 11 million is a large number of prescriptions and if common, non-abused drugs are in this database, what is its real purpose?

From ubergizmo:

The iPhone is equipped with a facial recognition system, dubbed MORIS, that allows the police to snap a picture of the person, which is sent back and compared against a database of bad guys that the state is currently compiling, finding out if you’re on a wanted list or not. While it’s currently using facial recognition, there is also an iris identification feature in the works, along with a fingerprint reader. Of course, it’ll be interesting to see if the iPhone’s camera is good enough to capture minute details of the iris and fingerprints in order to make a positive match, but we’ll see.

On April 28, 2009, the Massachusetts state senate passed [pdf] the pandemic response bill, which will allow the authorities to quarantine citizens in a health emergency, force vaccinations, and permit forceful entry into private homes.  The bill also provides for fines for noncompliance as well as not being liable for destruction of a citizens’ property.

Refusal to comply not only gets you a fine ($1000 per day for each day you continue to violate the law), you will be quarantined if the authorities deem the situation an emergency and throw you in jail for up to 30 days.

State and local agencies responding to the public health emergency would be required to exercise their powers over transportation routes, communication devices, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing and shelter, according to the legislation.

Local public health authorities will be required to keep records of reports containing the name and location of all people who have been reported, their disease, injury, or health condition and the name of the person reporting the case. In addition, citizens may be subject to “involuntary transportation.”

Line 341 of the bill states, “Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center. No law enforcement authority or medical personnel shall be held criminally or civilly liable as a result of an act or omission carried out in good faith in reliance on said order.”

Iowa already has a form [pdf] informing you that you’ve been in contact with someone with H1N1 and you must relocate.  Florida, Washington, and North Carolina also have similar plans already in place.