Flock Cameras: When Observation Becomes Surveillance

 Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) systems—commonly known by the popular brand name "Flock cameras"—are often presented as little more than high-tech security cameras. That description, however, leaves out the feature that has many Americans concerned.

Think of an ALPR camera as a security camera with a memory. Rather than simply recording video, it identifies every passing vehicle and records information such as the license plate, date, time, location, make, model, color, and often distinguishing characteristics like bumper stickers, roof racks, aftermarket accessories, or visible damage. That information is then stored in a searchable database.

Supporters argue that these systems help solve crimes by giving investigators another tool to locate stolen vehicles or identify suspects. There is no question that ALPR systems have legitimate law enforcement applications.

The constitutional concern is not about targeted investigations. It is about the routine collection and long-term storage of information on millions of innocent Americans who are suspected of no crime.

Imagine that every time you drove down a road, someone wrote down your license plate, described your vehicle, recorded where you were and when you passed, and kept those notes for months or even years. Most people would recognize that as surveillance. ALPR systems simply automate that process on a massive scale.

Some argue that because license plates are visible in public, there is no expectation of privacy. I believe that misses the larger issue. There is a significant difference between a police officer observing a vehicle on a public street at a single moment in time and the government maintaining a permanent database capable of reconstructing a person's movements over weeks, months, or years.

Where you travel can reveal a surprising amount about your life. It may disclose where you worship, which doctors you visit, whether you sought legal counsel, attended a political rally, visited family, or participated in a support group. None of those activities are criminal, yet all become part of a searchable historical record when mass surveillance systems are allowed to operate without meaningful limits.

The Fourth Amendment was adopted to protect citizens from unreasonable government intrusion. Whether ALPR databases ultimately violate that protection is a question courts continue to examine. But I believe the principle is clear: government should not be compiling detailed travel histories of innocent citizens without judicial oversight.

Technology has made mass surveillance easier than ever before. That convenience should not become an excuse to weaken the constitutional safeguards that have protected individual liberty for more than two centuries.

Crime fighting is an important responsibility of government. So is protecting the constitutional rights of the people. We should be able to do both without sacrificing one for the other.

Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

I'm wondering; where does it say that heterosexual marriages are a constitutional right?

My version of the Constitution lists no such federally-protected or guaranteed right.

This judge fails to demonstrate how marriage - any marriage - is a right.

Marriages are a consensual agreement between two people. In order to be married, one must have a partner willing to marry. If marriage is a RIGHT, then how is it satisfied if one is unable to find a partner willing to join in marriage?

In order to guarantee that "right" to marry, a partner must be found and forced to consent.

How is that a "right?"

Answer, it is not.

There is no right to marriage, same or mixed-sex.

What there is, is a PRIVILEGE to marry. That being the case, the authority granting the PRIVILEGE is entitled to have any rules it likes governing the act.

The precedent of marriage is that it is mixed-sex. There is no more resounding substantiation of this fact than the term, "same-sex," or "homosexual" marriage. There is no term, "mixed-sex" marriage, unless it is being used specifically in the company of homosexual topics. The default, societally understood definition of "marriage" is that of a mixed-sex couple. It requires no modification.

So, the term "marriage" is preempted. Find something else.

If a same-sex couple wants to share in the state-sanctioned benefits automatically obtained by marriage, then let them be joined in a civil union that confers equal privileges. However, the term "marriage" is taken.