response

t> A COMPENDIUM OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SURVEILLANCE TOOLS

By Edward F. Loomis

0130

O Facial Recognition Systems O GPS Trackers + License Plate Readers O Drones O Body Cameras O Cell Tower Simulators O Parallel Construction

Although license plate readers did not have their origins as DHS devices, their concept and early prototype design grew from research within Britain's Police Scientific Devel­ opment Branch. License plate readers capture images of vehicle tags and either retain the images locally for later forwarding and analy­ sis or feed live images to optical character recognition software on a remote server for immediate processing. The server digitally searches for a match against a database of plates that are of police interest. The camera may be mounted on a fixed structure such as a light pole, an overpass, or a toll collection facil­ ity, in a parking lot, or on a mobile platform such as a police vehicle.

All vehicle tags that come within view of a license plate reader are captured, along with the location, date, and time of the obser­ vance and a photograph of the vehicle and

0 Edward F. Loomis 0 1 3 1

possibly its occupants. Once uploaded to the analyzing server and stored, the information may be shared with other law enforcement departments.

By correlating the plate data with vehicle registration information, police officers are able to identify the vehicle's owner. When analyzed, the data can reveal per­ sonal information about innocent citizens, their travel habits and pat­ terns, and their activ­ ities—such as atten­ dance at a gun show or a political rally—that would be considered protected under the First Amendment.

Private companies employ license plate readers to collect data that they can sell. On May 20, 2015, Vigilant Solutions, a subsidi­ ary of VaaS Interna­ tional Holdings, Inc., announced that it held over three billion license Plate scans in its data­ base and was adding new scans at a rate of one hundred million each month, offering

that information to its subscribers. Vigilant's customer base is the law enforcement commu­ nity, for which it tailors intelligence solutions to enhance policing efforts. Collected images may be stored indefinitely, as there is no legal requirement that license plate scans be deleted after a set period of time.

A survey of more than seventy police depart­ ments, conducted in 2011 by the Police Exec­ utive Research Forum, discovered that 71 per­ cent of the responding law enforcement agen­ cies were using license plate readers, that the

number of departments planning to use them over the next five years would increase to 85 percent, and that on average 25 percent of department squad cars would be equipped with readers by 2016. While license plate readers have contributed to the recovery of stolen vehicles and abducted children, and helped in solving other crimes, a

2013 ACLU report com­ piled from the analysis of twenty-six thousand pages of data from 293 police departments in thirty-eight states warned that the readers enabled the illegal targeting of religious and ethnic minorities in the United States, and a 2012 AP article cited that the NYPD had used license plate readers in the vicinity of mosques in 2006 to profile Muslim worshipers. •

A COMPENDIUM OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SURVEILLANCE TOOLS

0192

By Edward F. Loo mis

O F a c i a l Recognition Systems O GPS T r a c k e r s

O L i c e n s e P l a t e R e a d e r s

• Drones O Body C a m e r a s

O C e l l T o w e r S i m u l a t o r s

O P a r a l l e l C o n s t r u c t i o n

Many federal, state, and local police departments now employ drones for covert surveillance, crowd monitoring, crime scene analysis, investigating active crimes, reconstructing traffic collisions, and search and rescue operations. The Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College issued an updated drone usage report in May 2018 that indi­ cates 302 county police and sheriff and 278 municipal police departments currently own at least one drone, and that the number of public safety agen­ cies with drones had increased by approx­ imately 82 percent in the last year alone. It reported the largest local law enforcement drone inventories to be owned by the Polk County, Fla., Sheriff (20), the San Diego County Sheriff (10), the Alameda, Calif., County Sheriff (10),

O Edward F. Loomis 0193

the Palm Beach, Fla., County Sheriff (9), and the Rockford, III., Police Department (9).

Drone technology has advanced con­ siderably in recent years and some drones can conduct surveil­ lance operations from heights of four miles- far enough to be invis­ ible from the ground. When equipped with high-resolution cameras, drones can stream live video and generate massive amounts of data. More sophisticated drones can be armed to pen­ etrate wi-fi networks and record phone conversations and text messages. They can also carry infrared sensors that monitor persons at night and inside buildings.

Reuters reported on August 2, 2017, that the Secret Service planned to employ a drone to monitor Pres­ ident Trump's Bedmin- ster National Golf Club for an upcoming visit.

The Secret Service stated it would notify local residents that the outer perimeter would be monitored and that any recordings made would "be overwrit­ ten within 30 days or

become part of a law enforcement investi­ gation." It's yet to be determined what the legal implications of

surveilling the general public with this tech­ nology are regarding Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Accounts of U.S. predator drone strikes against enemy com­ batants outside of war zones date back to their use against Yemeni terrorists in November 2002. Although no reports of police department use of such lethal technology have appeared, former Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed in his May 22, 2013, letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that four American citizens had

been killed by "U.S. counterterrorism oper­ ations against al-Qaida and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities." The specific language was intended to avoid identifying the means as drones. •

V ESSAY A growing movement is fighting for citizen oversight 0219 of police surveillance in their communities.

It Takes a Village

Camille Fassett

V ESSAY T H E E N D O F T R U S T CSS31 0220

I the ACLU of Massachusetts, was shocked. Days later, Crockford filed a public i ecords request with the BPD to find out why officers were flying a surveillance drone in a residential, predominantly black area.

The department responded that, while it had purchased three drones, none had been flown that day. It claimed the drones had never even been unboxed. Despite numerous photographs, witnesses, and news articles about the incident, the department repeated its assertion that the drones had never been used.

"There was no information communicated that there would be drones in my community, and no notice from the Boston Police Department that they were testing them, McMillen said. "No one knew what they were filming or recording."

*n 2015, the BPD fought public records requests by two individuals for • Tto re^atec*to t^le department's use of cell phone surveillance technol­

ogies before finally confirming it did possess such a system. Before Crockford's

^ • T' • 6 n0t disclosed that it had drones, or that it was even TS1, en"g Purchasing them. It had no legal requirement to do so.

1 C BPI?' other law enforcement agencies are rapidly acquiring new from 1 T*2 teC n°Iogies'and are in many cases not required to gain approval from local government or even to inform the public.

not informP0'm6 departraent in Sa" J°se, Calif., purchased a drone, it did thousand doll!|PU '"'ther pnor to or after the purchase. It used nearly seven the d^tartrn 'u raI m°ney to purchase it-money intended to aid deparunents a ' h ^threats explosives. Oftentimes obtaining newSCrUtiny ^ Ioca' democratic processes by

icing equipment through federal funds. The Department of

n July 2017, residents of a Boston neighborhood spotted police officers flying a drone around a housing project. Jamaica Plain resident My'Kel McMillen saw it for himself. He took photographs that clearly showed the drone, Boston Police Department squad cars, and officers in uniform, and sent them to his local ACLU chapter.

Kade Crockford, Director for the Technology for Liberty Program at

O Camille Fassett • It Takes a Village 0 2 2 1

Homeland Security, for example, showers millions of dollars in grant money on local law enforcement agencies.

Drones, or unmanned aerial systems, can carry heat sensors and cameras, including infrared. Some can track people and vehicles at altitudes of twenty thousand feet. Police use them for routine law enforcement purposes, such as locating missing persons and assessing damage to homes, bridges, power lines, and oil and gas facilities after natural disasters. But some have also proposed using them to record traffic violations and to monitor protests. One bill in Illinois, which thankfully has been stopped for now, would have allowed police to deploy drones armed with facial recognition software at any gathering of more than one hundred people.

Law enforcement agencies are required to obtain a warrant to use a drone in only approximately one third of states. And because of their vast technological capabilities, such as flying far above the limits of human sight, drones could be used to spy on Americans without their knowledge, even if a warrant is required.

But the morphing landscape of high-tech electronic surveillance goes far beyond drones. Perhaps the most common spying equipment used by police departments, surveillance cameras can allow police to monitor people virtu­ ally everywhere. A number of police departments are also allowing private businesses and residences to grant them access to their camera footage, expanding police surveillance into private spaces.

Some agencies have purchased automated license plate readers (ALPRs), which capture every license plate number that they pass and link them to information like the location, date, and time they were logged. Although the data collected by ALPRs is not attached to a person's name, this information can reveal identifying driving patterns, what vehicles visited particular loca­ tions, and a driver's associates. Much of this data is consolidated in a database that can be accessed by agencies across the country.

Facial recognition software could be used to identify people from pictures or photographs, in real time or even at traffic stops. And systems of audio sensors, often sold under the brand name ShotSpotter, alert police to the

v DATA Drone Law in the United States

MCS54 •»]

> Wisconsin North M Dakota Iowa Illinois

Vermont Montana

Indiana

Florida

States that do not require warrants for any type of drone activity. Arkansas, California, Kansas,

and Michigan require warrants for non-government use only.

0 Camille Fassett • It Takes a Village 0 2 2 3

sound of gunfire. In order to do so, the systems necessarily listen at all times. Cell site simulators-commonly known as Stingrays-are particularly con­

troversial surveillance devices that mimic cell phone towers so that police can identify and track mobile devices nearby without ever involving phone companies. Some can gather information including unique data about a given device and even the content of unencrypted calls or messages.

These technologies, particularly combined, can exponentially increase the capacity of police departments to watch their citizens. For example, drones can carry other kinds of surveillance technologies—like cell site simulators and cameras with facial recognition software-amplifying the capabilities of both.

These vast powers, largely devoid of oversight, disproportionately burden already disadvantaged people. In 2012, the New York Police Department captured the license plate numbers of every car parked near a mosque. U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has access to a national database that allows the agency to track immigrants. Indiscriminate mass surveillance specifically impacts people who visit sensitive locations, like women who visit reproductive health clinics, and those who are already targeted by police- largely Muslim, black, and brown people.

But across the United States, communities concerned about secret sur­ veillance are fighting to change that by enacting local legislation that would require transparency and accountability in law enforcement acquisition and use of spying technologies.

Santa Clara County in Silicon Valley and Seattle made history by becoming the first jurisdictions in the United States to enact surveillance ordinances, in 2016 and 2017 respectively. In both regions, agencies are now required to involve the public, gain approval from officials before acquiring new surveillance technologies, and develop use policies that include civil liberties protections.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian proposed the Santa Clara legislation, which mandates annual surveillance reports that detail how the technologies were deployed throughout the year. It also requires that existing technologies that were acquired before the ordinance was adopted have use policies put in place.