In George Orwell’s classic novel, “1984,” the people living in a dystopian and deeply authoritarian state are constantly informed that “Big Brother” is watching them. Surveillance cameras and microphones are hidden and in plain sight all over the place, even in private homes, ensuring that nobody decides to have an original thought that might be critical of the government. The whole point of the novel is to warn us of the dangers of living under such rule and reign, but alas, the modern day progressive movement uses the story like a playbook for implementing their agenda.
According to a report from Prophecy News Watch, an increase in license plate readers, known as ALPRs, all over the U.S. has led to an increasing wave of lawsuits, public outcry, and debates within the legislative branch of the government as the machines raise fresh concerns about privacy and other civil liberties. Which, as we all know, the deep state actors within the federal apparatus are all too eager to violate in order to enforce the rule of elites who have powerful positions from which to implement pieces of the agenda.
The lawsuit against Norfolk’s city officials and the use of a network of 170 ALPRs represents only one part of a broader legal pushback. Cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago have similarly adopted expansive license plate tracking systems, sparking lawsuits and calls for stricter regulation. Civil liberties groups argue that these networks infringe on Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, asserting that collecting and storing data on citizens’ movements without probable cause amounts to “dragnet” surveillance. In Virginia, the use of ALPRs has already been challenged before, with courts acknowledging concerns over the potential for misuse. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued Fairfax County after it was revealed that law enforcement retained ALPR data for years without any warrants, tracking individuals with no criminal background. The case echoed the concerns now being voiced in Norfolk, as plaintiffs in both cases argued that being monitored every time they drive amounts to a violation of their privacy rights.
ALPRs are only one facet of the expanding surveillance infrastructure. Across the country, many cities are now implementing these devices with the assistance of private surveillance companies like Flock Safety, whose business model includes not only gathering license plate data but retaining it for extended periods–often up to 30 days.
This data is stored in large databases that can be accessed by multiple law enforcement agencies, which is raising a lot of important questions about long-term retention of the information, the lack of judicial oversight of it, and the potential it all creates for abuses of civil liberties. Many critics of ALPRs have argued that the use of these machines has far exceeded its original intended purpose, which was to aid police in investigation of criminal activity, and is now being used as tools for constant monitoring.
“Flock Safety, one of the largest providers of ALPR technology, describes its system as a way to assist in preventing crime, advertising a proprietary “Vehicle Fingerprint” feature. This technology goes beyond simply capturing license plates; it records details such as vehicle color, make, and any distinguishing features, creating a comprehensive profile that is shareable across jurisdictions,” the report said.
In the Norfolk case, the data-sharing network from Flock means that any law enforcement agency across the country could access movement data on any vehicle that exists within the system, which dramatically increases the reach of surveillance. Again, this is very Orwellian in nature. While it is a helpful tool for law enforcement, in the wrong hands it’s a weapon of oppression.
And there have already been numerous documented cases of this system being abused, demonstrating the legitimate threat to our liberties that it poses. For example, in Kansas, a chief of police was busted red-handed using Flock’s license plate tracking system a total of 228 times over a period of four months, not to investigate crimes, but to stalk his ex-girlfriend and her new lover. This kind of abuse, along with many others, has led to discussions of tighter restrictions and regulations and in some states, complete bans on ALPRs.
California’s experience further underscores these risks. Despite a state law limiting ALPR data sharing, investigations found that several departments across California had shared data with other agencies nationwide without proper authorization. The lack of clear oversight and uniform policy enforcement reveals how ALPR systems, while promising enhanced security, can easily cross ethical and legal lines.
“Concerns about ALPR data go beyond abuse by individuals within law enforcement. Cybersecurity experts warn that the massive databases containing billions of data points from ALPR systems are prime targets for hackers. A breach of ALPR data could expose highly sensitive details about citizens’ daily routines, locations frequented, and even patterns of behavior. Given the scope of these data sets and the frequency with which information is shared among agencies, a single security flaw could compromise millions of drivers’ privacy,” the report continued.
We need to be weary of creating new kinds of technology that can and most likely will be used against the American people, innocent law-abiding folk whose only crime is having an original or critical thought about the individuals who are in charge. Our nation was predicated on freedom of thought, speech, and belief. The founders of the country knew well the importance of being able to air grievances without fear of governmental persecution and prosecution.
Sometimes. technological advancement is really a step backwards.
"*" indicates required fields