As police turn to surveillance technology, critics raise questions about privacy concerns

Police departments all around the country say surveillance technologies like cameras, drones, and license plate readers have proved invaluable in tracking and arresting violent criminals.

But critics say they sometimes go too far, invading privacy and violating civil rights.

Police praise license plate readers 

Police say in early August, three men from Texas robbed Wendy's restaurants in Monroeville, Penn Hills, Scott Township and Peters Township as well as a McDonald's in Castle Shannon.  

During the spree, automatic license plate readers tracked their Hyundai Tucson across state lines. Less than 24 hours later, police outside Indianapolis arrested all three and confiscated $13,000 — something Monroeville Police Chief Doug Cole says wouldn't have been possible without license plate readers.

"We wouldn't have recovered the money," Cole said. "We wouldn't have been able to make a good case. We probably wouldn't have solved it. It's a great law enforcement tool, almost on the level of fingerprints and DNA."

Critics worry about abuse

Police departments across the country say these plate readers have become invaluable in tracking and arresting violent criminals, hit-and-run drivers and the rest. But critics and civil libertarians call their use unconstitutional mass surveillance prone to abuse.

"There's nobody watching the watchers, and that's the problem," said John Biedrzycki, known as Steel City Lawyer.

Biedrzycki cites cases of stalking across the country where police officers — like Michael McSherry of Allegheny Township — have been accused of using the plate readers to keep tabs on ex-romantic partners and others. The high-profile cases raise broader concerns about who has access to the data and how it's being used.

While the technology is marketed by several private companies, most of the recent criticism has been leveled against Flock, the nation's largest, with a network of 120,000 cameras. Flock cameras are used by several municipalities in the Pittsburgh area, including Castle Shannon. 

Unlike other ALPRs, which are generally used in small geographic areas, each Flock camera is tied into a nationwide, searchable database, allowing what Biedrzycki calls warrantless searches across the country.

"A national database that can be accessed by any subscriber anywhere in the country. So police in Hawaii can watch Flock cameras in Pittsburgh if they wanted to," Biedrzycki said. 

Pittsburgh police don't use Flock

Responding to criticisms, Flock recently announced new guardrails, including auditing for improper searches and shortening its standard data retention from 30 days to seven days. But the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office and the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police share concerns about Flock and don't use it. 

Pittsburgh Police Chief Jason Lando is a big proponent of ALPRs and other tools in fighting crime but believes there need to be tight controls over the access to and use of all of this technology.

"We go to great lengths to make sure that we are using this responsibly, and we're following the rules," Lando said.