The ACLU is raising concerns about the abuse of automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology in the wake of a disconcerting story out of Kansas. The technology, which has been described as a tool for mass surveillance, was used by police to track a man who had published an opinion piece critical of the police department in a local paper, and who was subsequently suspected of putting up anti-ICE posters around town a few days before the op-ed was published.
Canyen Ashworth published his guest column in the Kansas City Star on September 30 of last year. A resident of Lenexa — a suburb of Kansas City — Ashworth argued that the city and police department were not doing enough to protect the rights of residents when it came to ICE raids and related immigration issues.
Later that day, as KCUR investigative journalist Sam Zeff later discovered, then-police chief Dawn Layman sent the column to a department crime analyst, suggesting she was considering a criminal investigation into Ashworth.
Some time later — exactly when and why remains unclear — Ashworth was also linked to the “Paper Hanger” case. On September 26, an unidentified suspect had put up four anti-ICE posters around town featuring the words “Remember when we killed fascists.” The posters were promptly taken down and a criminal investigation was opened, ostensibly because the glue was damaging city property.
Based on Ashworth’s alleged connection to the “Paper Hanger” case, an allegation that was suspiciously convenient for those who took issue with his column, a BOLO (“be on the lookout”) email was sent to all patrol officers, dispatchers, and commanders on October 21. The email identified Ashworth as a suspect in the “Paper Hanger” case and featured some blurry images of a hooded suspect along with an image of Ashworth’s car.
It turns out that the police department had been using their ALPR technology to track Ashworth’s movements. “He doesn’t get out much; he last hit a week ago today and appeared to come from McKeevers,” wrote the crime analyst who penned the email, referring to a local market.
The analyst went on to say that “This is MYOC,” that is, “make your own case.” There was no arrest warrant for Ashworth, so police could only stop him if they could come up with a reason.
In the end, Ashworth was never stopped or questioned. He only found out about being suspected and having his car tracked when Zeff told him about what he had uncovered.
“The first emotion that comes to mind is jarring for sure,” Ashworth said upon learning what happened. “And then I think after that comes being pissed off.”
After Zeff started contacting experts about his findings, which were published on February 2, Ashworth was hardly the only one who felt this way.
‘A Rare Public Example’ of Abuse
Micah Kubic, the ACLU of Kansas Executive Director, has put into words what many are no doubt thinking about this story. “The idea of putting out, the equivalent of, an all-points bulletin, BOLO, on an individual for putting up posters is both a rejection of the First Amendment, and a really ridiculous misuse of resources,” said Kubic. “The idea that you can essentially just make something up to throw against the wall and see if it sticks to be able to go after someone, is a really chilling and dangerous thing.”
First Amendment attorney Bernie Rhodes expressed particular concern about the former police chief’s abuse of the ALPR system. “She’s using the city’s license plate readers not to combat a wave of armed robberies, but to track down the everyday movements of an everyday citizen who dared to write the Kansas City Star and express their opinion,” he said.
Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, echoed these concerns. “This is a rare public example of exactly the kind of abuse that we’ve long warned against when it comes to mass-surveillance systems like license plate readers,” he writes.
He goes on to say that this story is “a particularly clear example of the abusive dynamic that mass-surveillance systems always end up falling into.” The dynamic he describes follows a simple three-step process:
Step 1: Authorities identify a target they dislike but have no evidence against.
Step 2: They aim sophisticated surveillance technologies at the targeted person.
Step 3: They try to catch the target doing something they can be charged with, no matter how petty.
Stanley’s comparison is apt. For Step 1, Ashworth wrote an article that made him a target of the local police department. In Step 2, the police weaponized their license plate reader technology against him, tracking his movements. Ostensibly this was only about the posters and had nothing to do with the article, but it looks awfully suspicious. And even if it was genuinely only about the posters, does anyone seriously believe that the reason for the criminal investigation was property damage from glue? “Posters about lost pets and community events were generally not removed,” Zeff notes. So even the posters narrative seems to follow the three steps, except in that case the ire of the police department was initially raised over the message of the posters rather than of the article.
Once the target is being spied on, Step 3 is for the police to find an excuse to arrest him. This is represented in our story by the BOLO email and the “make your own case” rhetoric, which is perhaps extra chilling because they’ve even made an acronym out of it — MYOC — which suggests this is a common practice in the Lenexa Police Department.
No doubt those who have found themselves under arrest by this department would be curious to learn whether their experience was the result of a “make your own case” initiative.
But the broader point is this. Even if we assume the absolute best in this story, even if we assume no foul play, no malicious intent, and no wrongdoing, these events still highlight the immense potential for the abuse of these kinds of surveillance technologies.
At the risk of making myself a target of these three steps, it’s worth reminding everyone that the police are not always saints, and that giving them the power to monitor our daily lives does not necessarily result in the limited, judicious, and well-intended surveillance that is always promised with such sincerity.
Watching the Watchmen in an Age of Mass Surveillance
That those in positions of authority cannot always be trusted to wield their power virtuously is hardly a new idea. As far back as the second century, the Roman poet Juvenal famously asked “Who will watch the watchmen?” But that question becomes more significant in proportion to the power of the watchmen. When modern surveillance technology gives police jaw-dropping powers to monitor our every move, the concern about whether they can be trusted to do the right thing with that power becomes considerably more pressing. This is no longer the second century, nor is it 1920 — the year the ACLU was founded. The world we now inhabit is a world of automated license plate readers, of targeted advertisements for something you merely had a conversation about 12 hours earlier, and now AI. As such, institutional limits on surveillance powers are more important than ever.
The rejoinder will be that these powers help the police to combat crime. By limiting their ability to spy on us, we are limiting their ability to keep us safe. This is an understandable concern, but it overlooks the crucial fact that we need to be kept safe, not only from common criminals, but also from the police themselves. The view that more surveillance power always means more safety is born from the naïve assumption that the police are always interested in protecting the people they watch over, and never in harming them.
Regrettably, this is not the world we live in.
The trade-off therefore needs to be reframed. The choice we are presented with is not really about safety versus privacy. It is about being kept safe from common criminals versus being kept safe from those in authority.
Navigating this trade-off is never easy, but when stories like the Canyen Ashworth case come out, they are a sobering reminder that the need to be protected from the people who are supposed to be our protectors is all too real.
0 Comments