Ep.26 | Are automated license plate readers invading your privacy? (Guest: Sara Vig)

Show Transcript

[00:00:00] Hello and welcome to episode 26 of Privacy Lawls where I Donata Stroink-Skillrud, speak with amazing privacy professionals and attorneys. And we have some laughs along the way as well. Today I’ll be speaking with Sara Vig about the privacy issues surrounding automated license plate readers and a recent audit that brought up privacy concern.

Sara Vig is the co-founder of Vig Law, where she focuses her practice on criminal defense work and appeals. She has represented clients on drug charges, DUIs, violent crimes, sex crimes, traffic cases, and misdemeanors throughout central Illinois. She holds a JD from the University of Illinois. So Sarah, thanks so much for joining me today.

Thanks for having me. So as a criminal defense attorney, what types of privacy issues do you encounter in your practice? I mean, I, I think that we, um, encounter privacy issues almost every day in our practice. You know, a lot of our practice, [00:01:00] uh. Is, is motion work more than you would think. And those motions have to deal with when officers have the right to search you, when the officers have the right to search your house, your car, your person.

So, you know, almost every day I’m talking to my clients about their rights, their rights to privacy, their rights to be secure in their own person, their place, their house. So every day. So before you tell your clients about their privacy rights and, and talk about these privacy issues with them, do you find that a lot of them are aware of their privacy rights before you talk to them?

Yeah, actually I think most of my clients are they’re very knowledgeable about it, right? Like they know they have a right. Um, to not be searched without a warrant. They know they have a right. Um, to be, to be left to their own self, you know, in their house, in their car. I think where, where it becomes confusing is that line between what the officers.

Becomes probable cause for the officers, [00:02:00] right? Where, where does that happen? And sometimes that’s where it gets blurry. But yes, they are aware that they are supposed to be left alone largely unless they’ve done something wrong or the officer has probable cause and a warrant to think that they’ve done something wrong.

What do you wish more people knew about privacy when it comes to potential criminal situations? You know, that’s interesting because I think everybody knows it, but nobody applies it. Right. Um, what’s important is the reason you have that right to remain silent is because it’s, it’s essential, it’s fundamental.

You have a right to remain silent because you have a right not to. Not to incriminate yourself and so many times the problem is as my clients start talking, right? They, the officers didn’t have probable cause before, but now here you are, right? And you’ve told them everything you know, and now all of a sudden we have probable cause and yeah, they can get into your car now, now they can get in, you know, they can search your person, they can go get that warrant for your house, right?

Whereas if you really, if you [00:03:00] embraced, embraced your right to be private, and that’s what that is, right? That right. Not to incriminate yourself, that’s part of what that is. We wouldn’t be here, right? They wouldn’t have that warrant. They wouldn’t have that ability to search your person. And oftentimes, you know, they don’t even find, they don’t even find the evidence that they think they’re gonna find.

It’s just something else, something silly. Generally, you know, a little bit of weed on their person. You know, something just that they’re not supposed to have. But here they do. It’s really interesting how your application of privacy in your work differs from what I do, which is, you know, like internet privacy and, and things like that.

And it’s really interesting to see privacy applied to a situation that can be a lot more. Serious than, you know, getting Facebook ads or, or something like that. It really makes me think of this one, uh, video that I keep getting on Instagram for some reason, uh, where it’s two civil rights lawyers and they’re talking about your rights and protests and they’re like, you know, the number one thing you need to remember is shut the F up.

Yeah, true. It seems [00:04:00] like that applies here too. It it is true. Uh, you know, and I think it’s interesting you talk about, uh, the technology because, you know. I think that is an interesting issue that is really is bleeding into what I do. ’cause so many times where the officers are finding their probable cause are Snapchat, right.

Facebook, like they post silly pictures. Mm-hmm. Right. All, all the things and those, you know, those are public so they can find ’em and, and here we are. Yeah. Yeah, that’s, that’s a really good point for sure. So let’s get into our topic for today. Automated license plate readers and the recent audit that brought up privacy concerns.

You know, I work in privacy. I’ve lived in Chicago land for many years and I had no idea that these readers were used in Illinois until I read an article that you were quoted in for the, um, Illinois State Bar Association Journal. What are automated license? Plate readers and how do they work?

Yeah, I mean they’re exactly, I think they’re exactly what they sound like, right? They are [00:05:00] cameras that are put up, you know, throughout the jurisdiction, wherever they have been authorized to be installed. And they, they take pictures of license plates. They just, they take pictures of license plates and vehicles all day long.

And, you know, they work, they record those images and then they save those images, I think in Illinois that they had, they saved them for 120 days unless they’re being used, um, you know. To prosecute some criminal something. But they’re there, they’re in their storage tank, right? Um, waiting. And it’s, it’s not directed, it’s not pointed.

It’s every car that goes by that reader gets read, right? And, and so then that information is there. So from what I understand, it’s not. The, the readers aren’t necessarily like you blew a red light, or you didn’t stop at a stop sign. It’s just you drove your car through a particular area and then it takes the picture of your license plate.

Right. That’s exactly right. And you know the way they’re set up, you know. Law enforcement, whenever they get a tip you may, maybe they have a partial plate, maybe they just have a description of [00:06:00] the vehicle, right? The way they’re set up. Law enforcement just puts in that partial plate or like it’s a white, you know, sedan, right?

And those readers, you know, produce a result that includes all of the white sedans, right? That pass by that reader that day, right? And then it’s just a ma a matter of narrowing down, right? To find, to find the sedan that you want. Mm-hmm. So what data do these readers collect and what could this data reveal about us?

I mean, I, they collect the license plate and they collect the car. I’m, I, what they reveal about us is where we go, what we do all the time. From the time, if you, if you, I, you’re in Chicago, so maybe you don’t drive, but I’m, I’m in, uh, Springfield, right? And so every day I drive from home to work. The second I leave my house all the way till I get to my office.

If I make a trip to Starbucks and then to the courthouse, if I’ve gotta go get something for my kids all day. Every day it’s taking pictures of my car, so all [00:07:00] day, every day. It knows where I am at all times. Right. And that’s, that’s the troubling part of it, I think. Right. There’s, there’s no way to avoid that the way it’s currently set up.

Yeah, and people don’t know where these cameras are located, so it’s not like, you know, I’ve seen people who, um, have this thing on their license plate where I’m gonna guess that you click some kind of button and it blurs out the license plate. So when they go through tolls, they do that. So can’t read their, their.

Plate and charge them, which illegal. But, um, you couldn’t do that here because you don’t know where these cameras are located. But I mean, it could potentially put you in the scene of a crime or close to the scene of a crime. Could know where you go to church, you know, maybe you visit a clinic or a hospital.

Yeah, there, there seems to be a lot of things that could be potentially revealed by just knowing where you are. I mean, that’s exactly right. And that’s exactly the problem. It’s, it’s essentially [00:08:00] watching us all the time. Right? They say that mm-hmm. They’ve, they’ve, they’ve put in the statute that they can only use the cameras, that they can only use the data for certain things.

But I mean, this is a private company. Flock is a private company, a private vendor that sets up these cameras and they make agreements with the state. You know, there’s no penalties for flock, right? Like even in the statute itself, the, the statute says, and you better, you know, state of Illinois if some other state wants your information.

And they’ve gotta, they’ve gotta affirm that they’re not gonna use it for any purpose that’s contrary to our statute. Okay? So Texas signs the affirmation, but maybe Texas wasn’t wholly upfront or, you know, maybe flock didn’t quite get the right, uh, didn’t word it quite right, whatever happened, right?

However it is. Flock is handing out information to, to Texas about, you know, I don’t know, immigrants individuals trying, trying to, um, access healthcare. Right? And so then Illinois finds out, but there’s no, there’s [00:09:00] no re repercussion for flock, right? Oh, we’re so sorry. Flock says like, we should not have done that.

You’re right. It was in violation of our agreement. But what, okay. There’s no fine, there’s no penalty. There’s no, you know what? Nothing happens to flock. So I’m not sure it doesn’t have any teeth, I guess. Yeah. So what did the audit into flock like? Reveal? What did it find? The way I understand it is it found that Flock was disseminating information to the US Customs and Border Protection.

Right? Like they were giving that information to, to border control essentially, which is one of the things our statute says you’re not supposed to do. Right. And again, I’m sorry, flock says, I’m so sorry, but it’s, it’s already done. And for those individuals that it affected, like we can’t take that back. We can’t fix that.

We can’t go backwards. Right. That it’s already happened. Yeah, I mean, doesn’t that kind of bring up the fact that there’s a big issue between outsourcing these things to, to third party companies, um, instead of potentially having the government [00:10:00] itself manage these cameras or set ’em up instead of giving that contract to, to a third party company that, you know, doesn’t, we don’t have any recourse against ’em.

Yeah, and I have thought about that a lot since we, since we set this interview like. Yeah, your initial inclination is, well, it’s a, it’s a third party vendor and that’s terrible. But think about it. So you give it to the government, well, now it’s the government doing it, and is that any better? Right. And maybe it’s worse because now the government’s like, I’m the government.

Right. And I have a right to do these things. Right? Like it’s, I don’t know that there’s a great answer there, you know, third party versus the government. It’s an intrusion either way. Yeah, absolutely. Um, so how does law enforcement use the data collected by these automated license plate readers? I mean, could they get this information from somewhere else potentially and remove these cameras, or are they truly necessary?

That’s a, that’s a lot of questions in one. Um,

how, how law enforcement. Is supposed to use the information is to investigate [00:11:00] certain kinds of crimes, right? Violent crimes, crimes that involve guns. It’s supposed to use the information for traffic safety to, to observe traffic flow, right? That’s what it’s supposed to use the information for. Um, I, in my practice, I see it, I, I, I’ve seen it.

Police hit those flock cameras all the time, right? They’ve got a shooting, they’re gonna find the shooter. They hit the flock cameras and they have it narrowed down, you know, with within just minutes right of, of who it is and where they’re from. Again, you know, you run into a problem of, well, there’s lots of issues, but I guess it’s a good thing that the flock cameras cannot see who’s driving the car.

Right. It’s also a bad thing because if the flock cameras are saying, well, this license plate is registered to this person, right? And, and we know that this car is connected to this thing, okay, all right. But how do you know that the person who’s registered in that car was in that car at the time? Right?

And what if they, I mean, people don’t always have great alibis, right? Like, it really wasn’t me, but I was just kicking it at home, right? Like I was watching tv. I let my brother [00:12:00] borrow my car, right? Nobody can confirm that. Like, that’s just, it was just the reality. But now here, their car has been involved in something, or allegedly involved in something.

And they, we’ve got the flock cameras finding ’em. So I don’t know if that answered all of your question. Yeah, I, I mean, I, I do think it’s, it’s really difficult to say that a particular person was driving a car or they could have just been in the scene for no reason. You know, they’re driving to the grocery store and they just so happened to drive close to a crime scene.

Um, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they were involved in a crime. So I do agree that that could be very questionable. I also think, you know, at least in the city of Chicago, there’s a lot of. Police cameras and monitoring and all these other things. So, you know, is this truly necessary? Could they, you know, solve crimes in a different way?

Like, you know, listening to 9 1 1 calls I’ve had many situations in the city of Chicago where I’ve seen, you know, the person commit a crime and go to a particular place and then [00:13:00] call 9 1 1 and then nobody shows up, you know? So. Maybe that could be a better way of solving crimes rather than just surveilling everybody.

Indiscriminately, I think, and yeah, I think I know that a federal, go ahead. Sorry. Oh, I’m sorry. No I, I was gonna say, that was the other part of your question. Are they necessary? I, you know, I really don’t think they are. Police have been solving crimes, just like you’re talking about way before flock system.

And they were good at solving crimes. Like they, the, the officers had developed other techniques to figure out who their suspects were and, and to solve those crimes. Like they did not have a problem before. I, are they necessary? No. Can police officers still cr solve crimes without them? Absolutely.

Absolutely. I think we’re, we, we get into this issue of, you know. Balancing our right to privacy and like the need to solve, the need to solve these crimes, right? Like where does that line, where does that line happen and what are we willing to give up? [00:14:00] What are we willing to give up is really what it is to solve crimes in this way.

Mm-hmm. When it’s not, it’s not necessary. We don’t have to solve crimes in this way. There are other ways to do it. So are we sure. Are we sure as, as a community, as a, as a, as a citizenry that we really want to engage in this type of. Crime solving technique. Like do we really want to be sur surveilled all the time?

I’m not sure. Mm. Yeah, I, I totally agree with that. So federal court recently ruled that automatic plate readers do not violate the Fourth Amendment. What are your thoughts on this decision? Yeah, it’s not surprising. Uh, it is consistent with the way the case law has come down to this point. You know, your plate is out there and it is, you have no privacy interest in your license plate because you put your license plate on your card for the very purpose of like now an officer.

If, if they want to pull you over, they can identify the vehicle. Right? They can identify where the vehicle belongs and who the vehicle belongs to. It’s not [00:15:00] surprising. I think that it is concerning because reading the opinion, the, the justice system is a long way from keeping up with the technology as is usually the case, and I think there are some.

Concerns, some, some concerns that were not around whenever this case law started being developed. Right. This case law is old, right? It’s, it started in the, you know, fifties, sixties, seventies, right? It’s, it’s been being developed over many, many years. And so we’re still, we’re still relying on those principles, but the things that affect our rights have changed drastically.

You know, when this, when they started this, this line of reasoning. You know, we didn’t have the flock system, we didn’t have cameras that watched us all the time. And now we do. And I think we need, we need some, we need a different template, right? A different way to analyze this because I don’t think the old way is, is gonna protect rights the way I think all citizens hope that they get protected.

Yeah. I, I really think that as technology changes, law needs to [00:16:00] adapt to that. And it, it seems like we’re failing pretty hard on that in a lot of different areas of law. Couldn’t you draw a parallel? I mean, if there are enough of these flock cameras around, couldn’t it be similar to somebody putting a tracking device on your car?

Oh yeah. ’cause it kind of leads to the same exact result, right? Yeah, I, yeah, absolutely. And that’s one of the things that they’re trying to distinguish. ’cause they can’t just put a tracker on your car, right? Like they’ve gotta have a warrant to put a tracker on your car. But now with the flock system, I mean, do they need it?

Right? Do they, do they even need that warrant? Right. Which the courts have to this point said the warrant is necessary, sir, you cannot just track a person. Right. But now you got the flock system and you can just like, you can just call up flock and be like, I need all the information on this vehicle for these days, right in this area.

Tell me where it went. Yeah. I, I don’t, I don’t personally see, I don’t personally see a distinction in that. Right. Like, what’s the difference of putting a tracker on the car? Right. Right. Versus just like watching it from the sky. I don’t, I [00:17:00] don’t see the difference, but the court is making a distinction.

Yeah. Yeah. It, it seems like there’s, the result is very similar. Mm-hmm. Or, or almost the same depending on how many cameras there are out there in, in your area. In your opinion, what would a reasonable use policy for these readers look like? I just think that is, I think that’s so hard because again, we come back to that idea that we started out with, which is, you know, once.

This private company has the information. They have the information, and so we can put, Illinois can, can outline all of the reasonable uses Right. And all of the ways that they can’t use it. And we can say all of those things, but it is in the hands of, of a private company who has contracts with all the other states.

Right. All other municipalities who may or may not agree with Illinois usages. Right. So I, I don’t know about a. I don’t know how you fashion a reasonable use. I guess one of [00:18:00] the thoughts I had is I’m not sure that we can even legis legislate into this, right? I’m not sure because it becomes a patchwork, right?

Of every state has a different idea of how it’s supposed to work. And so then with the inconsistency comes, comes the trouble, right? Comes the disclosures that shouldn’t be made. And again, once those disclosures are made, the person is already hurt, that that life has already been affected and you cannot take it back.

I, I, yeah, go ahead. So maybe the, the reasonable use policy is not used. Yeah. Not use these at all. Yeah. I, I think that, you know, the federal, the federal Federalist system that we have is sort of, it’s getting in our way a little bit here, right? Because you really need, you really need a blanket policy for everybody.

But the way we’re designed, like, that’s not gonna happen, right? The feds can say whatever they want, but then the states are gonna interpret it and do whatever they want. Maybe you can never really get there. It seems to me almost, it seems to me almost like, and this is like, I don’t know how we can, I don’t know how we talk to [00:19:00] people.

I don’t know how we show people because as we, you and I were talking about. I don’t know that the, the average citizen knows this is happening. I don’t know that the average citizen knows that they’re being watched all, like literally all the time. If you’re in your car, they’re, you’re, you’re being, you’re being recorded all the time.

I don’t know if they know that. It almost seems like we’re in a place where to truly address the problem, to truly address the issue, we really need to be thinking about like an amendment to the Constitution itself, right? To address this, these new, these new issues, right? And how are, how are our rights?

How do our rights line up with this new technology that we have and what do we agree as a citizenry like should be our rights in relation to this new technology? I’m not sure that, I’m not even sure that that opinions from the Supreme Court can adequately, can adequately address that without some out, some greater change.

Yeah, I’m, I’m really not a huge fan of these technologies being implemented [00:20:00] without anybody knowing, without anybody agreeing to it. They’re just put into place and then we find out only because there is some audit that revealed some, some pretty egregious violations. That’s not the right way to go about things, in my opinion.

Yeah, absolutely. And you know, you gotta think these, these technologies are being implemented by legislatures who are trying, who are trying to do the right thing, right, for their citizens. But these legislatures are be being approached by companies like Flock. Like, oh, don’t you wanna have security? Don’t you wanna have, um.

You know, peace of mind, right? We can help with that, right? Because, you know, we wanna protect against crime. And so legislatures are like, well, we wanna do the best we can. But they are, they’re making laws. I think without, sometimes it feels like without thinking through all of the natural consequences, right?

All of the problems that these Yeah. These laws are gonna cause. Yeah, for the low, low price of millions of dollars a year, we can help you keep your state secure. Secure. We can [00:21:00] help us on ice. Wonderful. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so final question for you, Sarah. What is the balance between security and surveillance that you would like to see?

I, again, in my experience, and I’ve been doing this for a long time, in my experience, I, I really think. Officers, were doing a good job before this. I really, I’m not, I’m not sold on that. We need this at all. I really am not sold on that. We need this at all. And I think that if people understood, I think if, if people understood what, what was actually being done and that these recordings were happening all the time, and that they’re being preserved by this third party for 120 days and you know, really they can use them for whatever, I, I don’t think that most people would continue to want that.

Right. And I, so I think for, for, for me. M my opinion is that we just really don’t need this type of surveillance. This, this type of surveillance is not necessary when it comes to solving crimes. [00:22:00] Officers have gotten very good at getting warrants and finding other ways to locate people and suspects and individuals.

And again, they rely on the technology all the time for that. And there are other technologies, other technologies that they can use for that. They don’t need to watch our cars. They just don’t need to watch our cars all the time. Yeah, I, I totally agree with that. I really think there, you know, the mass surveillance of everyone doesn’t necessarily justify this.

Um, and, and also there’s ways to solve crimes that are not as. Invasive on, on everybody. You know, you can get a warrant for a specific person or find this information elsewhere. You know, and maybe we all shouldn’t be surveilled just because it’s easier, or maybe this is just some kind of shiny new thing that legislators were pitched on and they thought it was interesting and, and could be helpful.

So I totally agree with that and I really think as, as somebody who resides in Illinois. You know, it, it would be good for us to get more public education you know, before these things are implemented. Maybe [00:23:00] this is put on the ballot to figure out whether people actually want them. Maybe there’s privacy assessments that can be used to figure out like, what are the risks associated with these technologies and, and are these technologies and worth putting up with these risks?

Absolutely. And when you’re talking about other ways, one of the other ways they have actually was mentioned in this case, uh, you know, it’s those cell phone towers. They’re ping those cell phone towers all the time. Right. They can find, you know, it’s just, it’s one other option. So I think that whenever we talk about community education, they need to know like, this is not it, this is not all that we have.

There are other things, other things that we can use. Yeah. And they, they’re real and that officers already use them all the time. Mm-hmm. Absolutely. Awesome. Well, Sarah, thank you so much for, um, taking the time to speak with me today about this. This is really interesting. And to our listeners, make sure to subscribe to Privacy Laws so that you don’t miss our next episode.

Thank you, Donata. I.