Crapaganda.com

Did you know that police cars these days are now outfitted with cameras that can automatically scan all license plates within their visual range? Cameras mounted on a patrol car driving 80 mph can capture plates from cars driving the opposite way traveling at the same speed. Side-mounted cameras can be used to collect plates in a parking lot as the officer cruises leisurely back and forth through the lanes! Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technologies mounted on police cars and various stationary sites are vastly improving the monitoring capabilities of the police force, and pissing off civil rights groups just as effectively.

The goal behind using ALPR monitoring is to track criminals. A “hot list,” provided by the FBI, is downloaded every day. The list includes perpetrators of all kinds, including illegal drivers such as those with suspended licenses or without insurance, but also more hardened criminals with warrants. They even track sex offenders. If a wanton criminal or a stolen vehicle turns up, the system notifies police who can then react quickly. In addition to spotting criminals, the data collected by the cameras can be mined in the event of a major incident such as a terrorist attack. Law enforcement officials could go back and see who was in the area at the time of the attack. The automated system is capable of scanning 10,000 license plates per hour and running checks on 2,000 to 2,500 of them against the “hot list” in a 10 hour shift. By comparison, the fastest police officers run about 100 plates per 10 hour shift. And the cameras are better at their job–they don’t tire at the end of their shift. Cruise shotgun with British Columbia’s Sergeant Rick Stewart in the video below for a demonstration of ALPR technology. Awesomely, he actually gets a hit during the taping: a stolen vehicle involved in an armed robbery.

The plate trackers were developed in 1992 at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom to help track terrorists. Several different technologies are combined to produce the system’s automated sophistication. A platefinder firmware continually searches the camera’s field of view for license plates. Once a license plate is detected the dual lens camera is activated, capturing images in both visible and infrared light. The infrared lens enables the camera to capture the plate in all kinds of weather conditions and even in complete darkness. A triple flash technology is also used that varies the flash, shutter, and gain settings over multiple images to adjust to different light and weather settings. A computer selects the best image for processing and that image is then read by an optical character recognition engine. The OCR engine can be generic or customized to the style of license plate found in a particular state or country. Because plates come in all shapes and sizes a good OCR engine will be flexible, reading plates from skewed and off-axis angles, and having different sizes, syntax rules, and designs. Processors will then take the data and store it in multiple formats for different types of downstream analyses.

Along with police vehicles, the cameras are also being mounted onto stationary sites such as toll booths and speed monitors: those roadside panels that tell you, “You’re driving this fast.” During last year’s World Series, San Francisco’s law enforcement used ALPR to monitor cars in the vicinity of AT&T Park. The San Francisco Chroniclerecently reported that the city’s crime fighters have placed the cameras on six of their cruisers–that’s adding to the ten which already had them. As of this time last year,Los Angeles had 26 cameras.

At $20,000 a pop, the plate scanners aren’t cheap. But the increased monitoring efficiency and accuracy make them well worth the cost to law enforcement personnel. A study performed by the Association of Chief Police Officers concluded that using the cameras increased arrest rates in the UK ten times the national average.

Big Brother Never Sleeps

Not surprisingly, the increasing use of automated plate recognition to track drivers has raised the ire of the ACLU and other privacy advocate groups. In addition to a general distaste for being monitored all the time, the major objection being brought against plate recognition technology is the possibility that the data might be used for purposes other than tracking criminals. A recent article in Time described a hypothetical divorce case where the movements of a person could be used as circumstantial evidence to argue adultery. Law enforcement officals everywhere are doing their best to assuage these sorts of fears. Sergeant Dan Gomez, who runs the LAPD’s Tactical Technology Unit, emphasized that their license plate data is heavily guarded with strict protocols that an investigator must go through if he wants to follow up on a particular car.

Given such famous privacy gaffe’s like President Bush’s wire-tapping and, most recently, the discovery that Apple iPhones and iPads are storing data on their customers’ whereabouts, I really can’t blame anyone for crying foul as the scanners show up on our neighborhood police cars and street corners. It seems like we’re constantly having to assess the sincerity of our technocrats when they tell us, “Honestly, there’s nothing to worry about.” Didn’t we all kind of know that Google was keeping tabs on what we asked them to look up for us? But even as the details of our lives are ever more embedded into our hard drives we continue sit back and trust the powers that be to not take advantage of us (Intriguingly, if you Google the words “Google” and “privacy,” the first four hits are google.com statements detailing their privacy policy. Suspicious, no?).

Look, I think the technology is great. By all means, nab the bad guys. But I’m also thankful that we have groups like the ACLU that raise these important questions that I’m sure most of us share. If science is too important to be left to scientists, technology is too important to be left to those who make it. In my opinion, the world really is looking more and more like Orwell’s “1984.” It’s probably a good thing, from time to time, to give Big Brother a punch in the nose.

Source: Singularity Hub

 

Faced with complaints from a citizen watchdog group, Atlanta police will stop interfering with people who videotape officers performing their duties in public, an agreement reached with the city Thursday says.

The settlement, which also calls for the city to pay $40,000 in damages, requires city council approval.

The agreement resolves a complaint filed by Marlon Kautz and Copwatch of East Atlanta, a group that films police activity with cell phones and hand-held cameras. The group has volunteers who go out on patrols and begin videotaping police activity when they come across it.

Last April, Kautz said, he pulled out his camera phone and began recording Atlanta police who were arresting a suspect in Little Five Points. Two officers approached him and said he had no right to be filming them, Kautz said. When Kautz refused to stop, one officer wrenched Kautz’s arm behind his back and yanked the camera out of his hands, he said.

“I was definitely scared,” Kautz, 27, said.

Kautz said that when he asked to get his phone back, another officer said he’d return it only after Kautz gave him the password to the phone so he could delete the footage. When Kautz refused, police confiscated the phone, he said. When police returned it, Kautz said, the video images had been deleted, altered or damaged.

As part of Thursday’s settlement, reached before a civil rights lawsuit was filed, the city will pay Kautz and Copwatch of East Atlanta $40,000 in damages. APD will also adopt an operating procedure that prohibits officers from interfering with citizens who are taping police activity, provided individuals recording the activity do not physically interfere with what the officers are doing. The policy is to be adopted within 30 days after the Atlanta city council approves the settlement, and training is to be carried out during police roll calls.

“We commend the city for resolving a long-standing problem of police interfering with citizens who monitor police activity,”  the group’s lawyers, Gerry Weber and Dan Grossman, said.

APD spokesman Carlos Campos said the matter had been referred to the Office of Professional Standards, and three officers were disciplined. The two officers who confronted Kautz — Mark Taylor and Anthony Kirkman — received oral admonishments for failing to take appropriate action. Sgt. Stephen Zygai was admonished for failure to supervise.

“Commanders have made it clear that Atlanta police officers in the field should not interfere with a citizen’s right to film them while they work in public areas,” Campos said.

Also Thursday, the Atlanta Citizen Review Board sustained allegations of excessive force against Kirkman, who took the phone out of Kautz’s hand. The board recommended to Police Chief George Turner that Kirkman be suspended without pay for four days. It also recommended that APD adopt the new standard operating procedure.

Copwatch began in 1990 in Berkeley, Calif., and other chapters have since been organized in cities across the country. Its goal is to protect citizens from being mistreated by holding police accountable. With the ubiquity of small hand-held cameras and cell phones, Copwatch members can begin videotaping a police scene at a moment’s notice.

“There shouldn’t be anything wrong with these constitutional watchdogs keeping an eye on the police,” said Emory University law professor Kay Levine. “Just about anything the police are doing out in the public, in performance of their duties, members of the public can see — and therefore film.”

Citizens should not interfere with police activity, however, and should be wary about compromising an undercover investigation, she said.

“Just about anything the police are doing out in the public, they should be comfortable being videotaped because they’re simply performing their duties,” Levine said. “If some aren’t comfortable with it, it makes you wonder why.”

Kautz started Copwatch of East Atlanta after he moved here about two years ago.

“We landed right smack dab in a situation where we saw police behavior was unacceptable,” Kautz said, citing the controversial APD raid of the Atlanta Eagle gay bar. “We saw Copwatch as direct action we could take to increase police accountability in the city.”

Copwatch members are trained how to behave when videotaping a scene, Kautz said. “It’s important for us when we’re out there to keep it together. We try to stay professional, as we expect the police to be.”

Copwatch members get varying responses from police, Vincent Castillenti, 24, said. Some officers become hostile because they don’t like the scrutiny, while others begin behaving less aggressively when they realize they’re being filmed, he said.

Kautz said the intent of Copwatch is not to get police officers in trouble. “The hope,” he said, “is that our presence will remind police the community is watching what they’re doing and wants them to be on their best behavior.”

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A new piece of technology may soon be coming to South Florida, but is already raising concerns from residents.

The Miami-Dade Police Department recently finalized a deal to buy a drone, which is an unmanned plane equipped with cameras. Drones have been used for years in Iraq and Afghanistan in the war against terror.

Many residents are concerned that the new technology will violate their privacy.

MDPD purchased a drone named T-hawk from defense firm Honeywell to assist with the department’s Special Response Team’s operations. The 20-pound drone can fly for 40 minutes, reach heights of 10,500 feet and cruise in the air at 46 miles an hour. “It gives us a good opportunity to have an eye up there. Not a surveilling eye, not a spying eye. Let’s make the distinction. A surveilling eye to help us to do the things we need to do, honestly, to keep people safe,” said Miami-Dade Police Director James Loftus.

The ACLU is one of the organizations that is concerned about the drone that may soon be coming to Miami-Dade County. Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida approves of the drones but also advocates strict regulation of the drones. “Technology: there’s no reason not to embrace technology if it makes the streets safer, if it helps the police. The concern is, though, that every new technology also has within it the capacity to threaten people’s privacy,” he said.

Terrorism expert Douglas Haas, however, believes that the drones will help in many ways, including fighting crime. “This has unlimited capabilities,” said Haas. “Not only is it good tactically for a SWAT call out or any tactical situation, there’s numerous search and rescue applications for it after a hurricane. They could send one of these up fast and assess damage.”

Residents have also questioned whether or not Miami-Dade Police can afford to purchase the drone, especially since the department has recently made a lot of budget cuts. “Nothing happens quickly in the purchasing process, and that’s something that really was in place, the funds for that, a couple of years ago,” Loftus said.

The purchase of the drone may have been made possible through a federal grant; however, this has not been confirmed.

Honeywell has applied to the FAA for clearance to fly the drone in urban areas. This has never been allowed before, but if it does happen, the Miami-Dade Police Department will be the first police agency in the US to use the technology.

Source: WSVN TV

Source: OregonLive

When Robert J. Ekas decided to exercise his right to free speech, he didn’t open his mouth.

He hoisted his middle finger.

His single-digit protests, aimed at Clackamas County sheriff’s deputies last year, resulted in verbal showdowns, traffic tickets and, ultimately, a federal lawsuit.

Giving a police officer the finger may be a rude and ill-advised gesture, but it is not against the law, legal experts say.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that speech may not be prohibited simply because some may find it offensive,” said Ira P. Robbins, a law professor from American University in Washington, D.C. “Virtually every time someone is arrested for this, assuming there’s no other criminal behavior … the case is either dismissed before trial or the person is convicted at trial and wins on appeal.”

Ekas, who represents himself, sued the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office and three of its employees, seeking corrective action and unspecified damages. Assistant County Counsel Edward S. McGlone III declined comment on the lawsuit.

Ekas, 46, a retired Silicon Valley systems analyst turned mathematician who lives in the Clackamas area, claims the traffic stops were acts of retaliation that violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. He also wants the court to rule that the Sheriff’s Office fails to discipline employees who “chill citizens’ … free speech rights.”

Ekas gave the finger to a deputy in July 2007 while driving near Clackamas Town Center, according to the lawsuit. With the deputy in pursuit, Ekas said he opened his sunroof and again extended a middle finger. The deputy turned on his flashing lights. Ekas stopped and was cited for an illegal lane change and improper display of license plates. He was acquitted of the charges.

In August 2007, Ekas flipped off another deputy. Ekas again was detained but not issued a citation. He claims he was harassed and intimidated by the deputy and a sergeant who was dispatched after Ekas requested a supervisor be sent to the scene.

Ekas said his actions are a political statement and a protest of police violence.

“They kill unarmed people. That bothers me,” Ekas said of police officers. He cited the deaths of James P. Chasse Jr. and Aaron Campbell at the hands of Portland police and the fatal shooting of Fouad Kaady by Clackamas County officers.

“What I am expressing is the right to dissent. That is to say, ‘Look, the policies that you’ve implemented … the things you’ve done in our community are offensive to me. Here’s my response to that offense,’” Ekas said.

“I did it because I have the right to do it,” Ekas said. “We all have that right, and we all need to test it. Otherwise we’ll lose it.”

Robert Ekas on KATU News

Ekas’s method of expressing himself has a long history.

The ancient Romans called it “digitus impudicus” — the impudent finger.

Police have been known to retaliate with traffic tickets or making arrests for disorderly conduct, but criminal charges are routinely dismissed. Criminal law “generally aims to protect persons, property, or the state from serious harm. But use of the middle finger simply does not raise these concerns in most situations,” Robbins wrote in a law review article, “Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law.”

A Pittsburgh man, David Hackbart, won a $50,000 settlement last year after being cited for disorderly conduct for flipping off an officer. The charge was “retaliatory” and violated his constitutional rights, a federal judge ruled.

The officer’s “response to Hackbart’s exercise of his First Amendment right” was to charge him with a crime, said U.S. District Judge David Cercone.

In West Linn, Police Chief Terry Timeus took a more diplomatic approach.

After a man’s run-ins with police escalated from giving officers the finger to following them on patrol, accusing them of retaliation and shining his headlights on them during traffic stops, Timeus stepped in to try to defuse the situation.

The police chief met with the man and told him the pattern of confrontation and harassment “isn’t going to accomplish anything.”

Reached at his home, the man said he suffers from anxiety and depression and asked not to be identified. He acknowledged his history of confrontation and grievances with police but said he wanted to move on.

“Chief Timeus has made a difference,” the man said, “and I don’t want to jeopardize that.”

For more on your legal rights and “The Finger” read:
Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law byIra P. Robbins (pdf)

Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the ”routine” monitoring of antisocial motorists, ­protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.

The arms manufacturer BAE Systems, which produces a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for war zones, is adapting the military-style planes for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.

Documents from the South Coast Partnership, a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan with BAE, have been obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

They reveal the partnership intends to begin using the drones in time for the 2012 Olympics. They also indicate that police claims that the technology will be used for maritime surveillance fall well short of their intended use – which could span a range of police activity – and that officers have talked about selling the surveillance data to private companies. A prototype drone equipped with high-powered cameras and sensors is set to take to the skies for test flights later this year.

BAE System’s new Herti unmanned aerial vehicle has been on reconnaissance and surveillance boat in Afghanistan.

CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones (Guardian UK)