License Plate Readers: Public Safety & Privacy
Neutral pending more evidence: evaluate public-safety value, regional capability, data protections, and routine auditing.
My position
I am not opposed to automated license plate readers, but I am not prepared to fully support their use without better information about how the data is protected, retained, shared, and audited.
Public-safety value and regional capability
I can see legitimate public-safety value in having additional vehicle information available for stolen vehicles, serious crimes, missing persons, and investigations that cross jurisdictional boundaries. I also recognize that if surrounding communities maintain these capabilities, Firestone should understand whether not having comparable capability would put our Police Department at an investigative disadvantage.
Data protection and routine auditing
At the same time, the larger concern for me is not simply the camera taking a picture on a public road. It is what happens after that observation becomes part of a searchable database. I want to know who can access it, how long it exists, where copies can go, how well outside vendors protect it, what happens if that protection fails, and whether information shared or exported remains subject to the same safeguards. There also needs to be strong, routine auditing of every access and use of the data so inappropriate searches, sharing, or other misuse can be identified and addressed.
How I would reassess the existing program
Firestone already has ALPR cameras in place, so the question is how to move forward with the existing program. My position remains neutral pending more evidence. I would evaluate its actual public-safety results, data protections, routine auditing, costs, and regional capability to determine whether it should continue unchanged, be modified, expanded, reduced, or replaced—or whether the earlier decision should be reversed and the program discontinued.
Questions I’m Working Through
- What measurable public-safety results has Firestone’s ALPR program delivered, and what investigative capability would be lost or reduced without it?
- How are retention, access, sharing, exports, and vendor custody controlled, and what routine audits verify that safeguards work and misuse is identified and addressed?
More detail
Measure useful results and justify deployment
I want to understand when ALPR information materially helped an investigation or public-safety response. Detection and alert totals should be connected to useful outcomes, with false or outdated alerts and how they were handled included in the review. Camera locations should have a clear purpose, and changes in coverage should be supported by evidence of their likely value.
Evaluate retention and the movement of data
The review should explain why information is retained for a particular period and whether shorter routine retention could preserve useful capability while reducing exposure. Records preserved for an investigation, exported into case files, shared with other agencies, or held in backups need clear rules. I want to understand where copies remain and whether deletion and sharing safeguards work in practice.
Require routine auditing of access and use
Every access and use should be logged and linked to an identified user and an authorized purpose. Routine reviews should examine searches, sharing, exports, and other uses, with clear responsibility for investigating concerns and addressing misuse. The Board should receive meaningful reporting on audit coverage, findings, and corrective action so it can assess whether protections are working.
Examine vendor custody and security
I want the town to understand who controls the data, where it is stored, who can access it, and how it is protected. Vendor and subcontractor responsibilities should address security, incident notification, audit access, and what happens to records when a contract ends or ownership changes. Written assurances should be supported by evidence that the protections are implemented.
Evaluate the existing program and determine next steps
Regional interoperability should be demonstrated: which neighboring agencies’ observations Firestone can retrieve directly, which require a request, and what capability would change with a different platform or deployment.
Because cameras are already operating, this evaluation should lead to a clear decision about the program’s future. Results, privacy protections, security, costs, and regional capability should support continuing, changing, or reversing the earlier decision. Any recommended change should explain the evidence behind it, how it would be carried out, and its effects on investigative capability and data already collected.