San Diego Criminal Lawyers Blog
Surveillance by law enforcement has had extensive growth in recent years, advancing capabilities to an often-worrisome level. Inarguably, it has made it easier to capture criminals. But it has led to some sober ethical questions, as well.
License Plate Readers
What could possibly be troublesome about automated license plate readers (ALPRs)? It seems they are everywhere these days, helping police to monitor traffic infractions and much, much more. They can identify stolen vehicles, trace victims of human trafficking and kidnapping, and assist in crime-solving. Moreover, they provide information to inform policymakers about traffic flow and potential transit interventions.
Conversely, privacy intrusions are a major concern. Innocent people can have their conduct and whereabouts tracked, which ultimately means their habits and activities exist in a database somewhere. There are documented instances of data being compromised, misused, or leaked. That can be particularly egregious when one considers the possibility of certain communities being targeted based on their zip code, race, religion, or other such grouping.
But You Have Nothing to Fear if You are Innocent…
The timeworn adage offered by some is that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. But taking that logic a few steps further, its simplicity and inadequacy become clear. The “you have nothing to worry about” mantra becomes problematic when the problem extends outward. What if the government required all citizens to carry location trackers? Even the most avid enforcement proponents would admit that seems pretty invasive. But modern technology allows the government to track people’s mail, phones, purchasing patterns, online activities, and driving habits. In other words, full-on tracking is already possible, whether or not citizens consent to carrying tracking devices.
The slippery slope society is on is dangerous. What might be the future of, say, biometric tracking? Nearly 30 years ago, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani advanced the idea of collecting the DNA data of newborns. In Britain, police now want to collect the DNA of kids who “exhibit behavior indicating they may become criminals later in life.” Is that, or is it not, a breathtaking leap in government intrusion?
Sure, modern abilities help law enforcement to pinpoint and capture criminals. But databases are also vulnerable to hacks, misuse, abuse, and theft. How can the use of such technologies be balanced against the potential for injury?
Questions Worth Considering
MIT professor Gary Marx, who studied the issue, suggested it is worthwhile to evaluate surveillance methods before implementing them by considering:
- Does the public know and consent to its use?
- Are the goals of the community served?
- Does the technology lead to unjustifiable psychological or physical harm?
- Are the people responsible for the surveillance subject to it, as well?
- Are conclusions subject to human review?
- Can decisions be challenged and grieved?
- Are less expensive/problematic approaches available?
- Are legitimate ends being sought?
- Are sufficient safety measures in place to guard against misuse?
Protecting Your Rights
The experienced criminal defense attorneys at Boertje & Associates always fight to protect our clients’ rights. To discuss your concerns, schedule a confidential consultation in our San Diego office today.