The surge in the use of Flock Safety automated license plate readers (ALPR) across Connecticut over the past couple of years has drawn the attention of state lawmakers who are worried about drivers’ privacy concerns and the sharing of data with such federal agencies as Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Regulation of the odd-looking contraptions that include a camera and a square-shaped solar panel attached to a pole has been the center of a debate in Hartford as lawmakers consider a bill to rein in their use. On Wednesday the joint General Law Committee held a hearing on the bill that is co-sponsored by 28 senators and representatives, including Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk.
The Atlanta-based Flock Safety cameras have been installed in about 40 municipalities, including Danbury, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, Monroe, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport and Wilton. According to the Flock Safety website, they go beyond capturing license plates by using a unique Vehicle Fingerprint™ technology accelerates investigations by allowing users to filter their search based on the vehicle’s specific characteristics, including body type, make, color, and more. They are not supposed to be used for facial recognition or determining a person’s gender, race or age.
It is that technology and the ability to share such data with third parties and the Department of Homeland Security that worries some lawmakers, especially in light of the Trump administration’s crackdown on migrants.
“This past October, it was reported that the company that provided both Illinois and Texas law enforcement with automated license plate reader technology, Flock Safety, had illegally allowed Texas law enforcement to access Illinois license plate reader data to track a woman who had allegedly sought abortion-related care,” Sen. Duff said. “This led to an audit that uncovered that Flock Safety also was illegally sharing data collected from automated license plate readers with the federal government, specifically the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Protection Agency.”
The Senate bill would:
- Provide for the registration of data brokers
- Require the Commissioner of Consumer Protection to establish an accessible deletion mechanism program
- Require manufacturers to affix tariff cost estimates to new automobiles
- Require disclosures regarding the use of personalized algorithmic pricing
- Amend the Connecticut Data Privacy Act by (A) defining “facial recognition technology,” (B) redefining “publicly available information,” (C) eliminating the entity-level exemption for certain processing decisions concerning employment, (D) providing consumers with additional rights concerning certain profiling decisions, (E) prohibiting the sale, sharing, transfer or allowance of access to precise geolocation data, and (F) establishing new requirements concerning facial recognition technology
- Require certain state and municipal contracts to restrict the sale, sharing, transfer or allowance of access to automated license plate reader information.
FOIA concerns
One particular section of the bill pertains to the exemption of ALPR data from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Legislators included that language in the bill because of the concern over the privacy and safety of owners of vehicles.
“CPCA (Connecticut Police Chiefs Association) strongly supports maintaining LPR data as law enforcement-sensitive information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,” the CPCA stated in its testimony. “Our primary concern has always centered on appropriate access to this data.
“Allowing private individuals to obtain records associated with a specific citizen’s license plate through a Freedom of Information request would raise significant privacy and safety concerns. Protecting this data from public disclosure ensures that it remains available for legitimate law enforcement purposes while preventing misuse or harassment.”
The Connecticut Council on Freed of Information board member Katherine Revello, who also testified, begged to differ.
“CCFOI opposes Section 18 of SB 4, which would exempt information from automated license plate readers (ALPRs) from the definition of a public record under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),” she wrote. “The bill’s FOI exemption for ALPR information will severely limit the public’s right to know how a fast-proliferating technology, the use of which has drawn concern from privacy advocates and politicians, is being used in their communities and hamstring journalists’ ability to serve as watchdogs against abuse of the technology.
“Here in Connecticut, CT Insider found that data from ALPR cameras from at least 6 police departments was searched thousands of times by immigration enforcement officials, many by officials from out-of-state. As CT Insider’s reporting notes, that likely raises questions about the legality of the searches under Connecticut’s Trust Act, again demonstrating that abuses of ALPR cameras can be addressed elsewhere and that an FOI exemption is not necessary.”
Third party sharing
Christopher Davis, vice president of public policy for the CBIA, is worried about the unintended consequences of regulating data brokers and data service providers, which includes many companies in the state.
“CBIA has significant concerns with several provisions that could create substantial compliance challenges, operational impracticalities, and unintended consequences for Connecticut businesses, especially the hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the state,” he wrote.
“The bill’s approach to defining and requiring registration of data brokers appears overly expansive. Many Connecticut businesses — ranging from retailers and manufacturers to service providers — engage in routine data sharing or licensing as part of ordinary commerce, supply chain management, or marketing.”
Local use of ALPRs
The Fairfield Police Department is one of the first Fairfield County municipalities to install the license plate readers and cameras. Although it won’t divulge how many ALPRs have been installed due to “operational and security reasons,” one can see many that have been placed in high traffic areas such as Villa Avenue and Kings Highway.
On a dedicated web page the town includes its ALPR policy, which states access to ALPR data is strictly limited to legitimate law-enforcement purposes. “Consistent with the Connecticut TRUST Act, we do not use or share ALPR data for civil immigration enforcement,” it states.
and “success stories” of their use in locating stolen vehicles, support missing-person alerts, and providing objective evidence after crimes. Installed in May 2023, the cameras have contributed to numerous arrests and recoveries, with plans for expansion, despite concerns over data privacy, according to the site.
Towns such as Newtown, Westport and Wilton also spell out their ALPR policy on their websites to explain how it is used to capture objective evidence without compromising individual privacy. Newtown goes as far as to state that it owns the data from the license plate readers and does not sell it to third parties.
