Get the Flock Out: “Noise cameras” versus ALPRs

There’s been a lot of public discussion — and local government action — in the U.S. lately regarding automatic license-plate reading (ALPR) cameras such as Flock, and the idea of surveillance more broadly. Examining and discussing public policies such as the use of ALPRs is welcome: People should always consider what the government is doing, the ostensible reasons for it, and the ramifications.

As part of the conversation, it’s important to differentiate between ALPRs and other kinds of cameras, and not conflate them as all recording the same information under the same conditions for the same reasons. Most are used for targeted vehicle enforcement, whereas others (including ALPRs) are not.

Traffic-enforcement cameras have a very focused purpose, and only photograph vehicle license plates in specific circumstances. The most common examples are speed cameras, which have been used in the U.S. for decades — almost exclusively in defined locations such as school zones, where they help protect children from reckless drivers, and in some residential areas, where they perform a similar role for everyone who lives there. Their job is to deter speeding by informing drivers their actions risk a citation.

Similarly, red-light cameras maintain public safety at intersections by deterring deliberate violations of traffic signals. And more recent noise cameras, which seek to deter excessive and unhealthy sound levels (especially late at night), operate within a similar framework: They only photograph vehicles that trigger sensors designed to detect noise above legal limits in a defined area.

ALPR cameras such as Flock are completely different. Most obviously, they lack probable cause — evidence that the vehicle being photographed has committed an infraction — and instead conduct warrantless surveillance of every vehicle that passes in front of them wherever they’re deployed.

That’s literally the opposite of what narrowly targeted vehicle-enforcement cameras do. But the differences between the two types of cameras don’t end there:

• Traffic cameras only photograph a vehicle’s license plate.
• The factual basis for any citation is reviewed by police officers before it is issued, thereby preventing unsubstantiated ones.
• Drivers can still contest the evidence that triggered a citation in a formal hearing (i.e., due process).

By contrast, ALPRs capture much more information about vehicles than simply their license plates, but because no citation is ever issued (or even intended to be), there’s no way for drivers to know they’ve been photographed — and thus no opportunity for them to challenge the reason for it (there is none) — and no deterrent to dangerous / unhealthy and illegal behavior by a few. It’s just mass surveillance.

These critical distinctions between ALPRs and vehicle-enforcement cameras should not be ignored or dismissed, and are the heart of the issue. Existing targeted enforcement of public health and safety regulations already deters misconduct by irresponsible drivers without resorting to unwarranted surveillance. Why start now? For this reason, the Noise Project opposes automated license-plate readers.