Members of Columbus City Council, thank you for holding this hearing on government surveillance and listening to a frustrated public’s concerns about automatic license plate readers (ALPR). You have plenty of people to hear from tonight so I will keep my remarks brief.
First, I will preface the rest of my testimony by saying, for the ACLU of Ohio, there is only one true solution to properly solving problems and addressing concerns. That is, ending the use of, and banning, ALPRs by the City of Columbus.
There is simply no amount of regulation or restrictions that will get us comfortable with their existence and use as a mass surveillance tool, whether in Columbus, or anywhere else in Ohio.
It is also important to note this is not just a Flock problem. Yes, there are entirely valid and necessary criticisms of Flock. But, there exists no benevolent, harmless corporation intent on selling to the rest of us the idea we must accept, for our own safety, never-ending surveillance, no matter where we go or gather. You can replace Flock. But the problem is much larger than an individual corporation.
On that note, automatic license plate readers are finally and deservedly getting much attention from the public, news media, and government officials. But, ALPRs are but one spoke of a much larger wheel of mass surveillance tools wielded by government and private/commercial entities. And, for that matter, surveillance technology is rapidly making automatic license plate readers obsolete, replacing that technology with that which is even more troubling and invasive.
But, I understand we are here, and it is vitally important we are, for discussion about automatic license plate readers in Columbus. ALPRs are designed to track our movements within a defined space and location. Multiple ALPRs can and are utilized to tracks us wherever we go throughout a city, revealing the political meetings and rallies we attend; where we worship; where we get, and the types of, physical and mental health care we receive; if we are gun owners; and so much more about who we are and our daily private lives. It is no wonder people are so concerned about their government’s use of ALPRs. And contrary to what Flock’s CEO claims, none of these concerns make me, or anyone else here, “terrorists.”
The adoption and use of automatic license plate readers in Ohio began at least 20 years ago. I often recall my first media interview on ALPRs. At the state level, Ohio was starting to use them at a handful of highway exits for the express purpose of tracking stolen cars. Our response to that inquiry about this new technology was essentially – it will not end there.
Indeed, over the past several years, there has been widespread proliferation of ALPRs in and across Ohio. It seems this rapid and mostly unquestioned spread has understandably ignited the concerns of Ohioans regardless of political party and ideology.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of all this is our elected officials and government leaders, in our state legislature and across our cities and counties, appear asleep at the wheel. How is it a technology so invasive, and so pervasive, is used by government and law enforcement with almost zero laws governing its use at the local or state levels?
Again, the gold standard is banishment of automatic license plate readers. But it is also important to uplift that in Ohio there are no laws regarding how long ALPR data is kept, for what purposes, who it is shared with, and for what purposes. Or when they can specifically be used versus when they absolutely are not permitted. Or warrant requirements before ALPRs are used.
In three out of three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past 15 years, all involving different surveillance technologies used by law enforcement, the Court has ruled the surveillance in all those cases were considered “searches” for Fourth Amendment purposes necessitating warrants in the future. It is likely ALPRs will be one of the next dominos to fall. Yet, right now, our cities, counties, and state are conducting huge amounts of surveillance across Ohio with zero warrants.
If governments are going to insist on using ALPRs for any purposes, how can there be no laws, no legal safeguards, that give Ohioans at least some confidence they are not subject to never-ending surveillance, with that data kept potentially forever, and with no limits on how it is shared (other than state law exempting data captured via ALPRs from disclosure under our public records law)? Sure, internal law enforcement policies on at least some of these matters, are better than nothing. But it is nowhere near adequate when the consequence is the erosion of our civil liberties and the right to privacy.
The ACLU of Ohio’s message to all elected and government officials with the power to change local or state laws is simple. If you are not going to get rid of ALPRs, but you do not intend for ALPRs to be used for the purposes of mass surveillance and related uses, then pass laws to prevent that.
For now, I offer a single example to demonstrate what is possible. In New Hampshire, state law requires ALPR data to be deleted within three minutes unless the data falls into some specific categories. Quick elimination of non-essential data is key to preventing and minimizing abuses. Ohio, at its state and local levels, can do at least as good as New Hampshire in this regard, if not even better. Again, that is but one of many examples.
But enough about regulation. The ACLU of Ohio believes Columbus should join the growing number of cities across the country that have outright rejected Flock and ALPRs, or at least not renewed existing contracts. Better still, ban via local law the use automatic license plate readers. More and more cities are rejecting ALPRs and Flock because of these concerns you are hearing tonight; you would not be alone.
One last note: Years ago, Columbus established itself as a statewide and national leader on the sometimes complex issue of police body cameras and personal privacy. That important work led directly to Ohio’s statewide law on this matter, now a positive model for the rest of the country.
There is much more to say. But I will end by saying Ohio is desperately lacking leadership on mass surveillance issues. Columbus, by far our largest city, can and should change that.