License Plate Readers Under Scrutiny: Why States Are Hiding Surveillance Data From the Public

<h2>1. The Power of Public Records Laws to Expose ALPR Surveillance</h2><p>For years, journalists, community advocates, and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have used state freedom of information acts (FOIAs) and public records acts (PRAs) to uncover how law enforcement agencies use automated license plate readers (ALPRs). These laws are a vital tool for shining a light on government surveillance programs. By requesting records, the public has learned about the scale of ALPR deployment, data-sharing agreements between agencies, and instances of misuse. Without these laws, much of this information would remain hidden, making it impossible to hold police accountable for overreach or errors. The transparency provided by FOIA requests has been instrumental in revealing the true scope of ALPR surveillance across the country.</p><figure style="margin:20px 0"><img src="https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/foia-og-1.png" alt="License Plate Readers Under Scrutiny: Why States Are Hiding Surveillance Data From the Public" style="width:100%;height:auto;border-radius:8px" loading="lazy"><figcaption style="font-size:12px;color:#666;margin-top:5px">Source: www.eff.org</figcaption></figure><h2>2. How ALPRs Collect and Share Data</h2><p>Automated license plate readers capture the license plate numbers, dates, times, and locations of every vehicle they scan—often thousands per minute. This data is stored for months or even years, creating a detailed map of where people go, with whom they associate, and what activities they engage in. Compounding the privacy risks, many law enforcement agencies share ALPR data across jurisdictions, sometimes with <a href="#item3">federal agencies or private companies</a>. The public's ability to access records about these sharing practices is critical to understanding the full scope of surveillance. Without transparency, it's impossible to know who has access to your travel patterns—or how that information might be used.</p><h2>3. States Are Moving to Block Public Access to ALPR Information</h2><p>In response to growing public scrutiny, lawmakers in several states have proposed or enacted legislation that would exempt broad categories of ALPR data from public records laws. These efforts aim to hide information about the extent of ALPR use, the number of scans conducted, error rates, false matches, and even the images of vehicles captured. While some argue that this protects privacy, the effect is to shut down the very oversight that has exposed abuse. EFF has been vocal in opposing such blanket exemptions, warning that they eliminate the checks and balances that FOIA laws are meant to provide. Without access, the public cannot verify police claims or challenge flawed practices.</p><h2>4. Examples: Arizona and Connecticut Bills Under Fire</h2><p>Two pending bills in Arizona and Connecticut illustrate the trend. Both would create special exemptions for ALPR data, preventing the public from obtaining records that have historically been accessible. In Arizona, the bill would block disclosure of <em>any</em> ALPR-collected data, including aggregated statistics. Connecticut's proposal similarly carves out ALPR information from the state's broad public records law. EFF and other transparency advocates oppose these measures, arguing they would undermine accountability. The bills are often promoted as privacy protections, but they fail to address the root problem: the mass collection of data itself. Instead of blocking oversight, lawmakers should focus on limiting data retention and use.</p><h2>5. The Privacy vs. Transparency Dilemma</h2><p>There are legitimate concerns about releasing raw ALPR data to the public—such as a person's complete driving history could be used for stalking or harassment. However, many current proposals <strong>fail to balance</strong> privacy and transparency. They swing the pendulum too far in one direction, shutting down access to all records even when privacy risks can be mitigated. A better approach would involve redacting personally identifiable information while still releasing aggregate data, error logs, and policies. Transparency should not worsen privacy harms; it should help identify and correct them. The current wave of legislation ignores this nuance, treating all ALPR data as too sensitive to share—which ironically protects police from oversight, not the public.</p><figure style="margin:20px 0"><img src="https://www.eff.org/files/privacy_s-defender-site-banner-desktop.png" alt="License Plate Readers Under Scrutiny: Why States Are Hiding Surveillance Data From the Public" style="width:100%;height:auto;border-radius:8px" loading="lazy"><figcaption style="font-size:12px;color:#666;margin-top:5px">Source: www.eff.org</figcaption></figure><h2>6. The Harmful Consequences of Secrecy</h2><p>When the public cannot access ALPR records, it becomes far harder to document and correct abuses. Past FOIA requests have revealed shocking misuse, such as officers scanning plates for personal reasons or sharing data without authorization. Studies have shown that ALPR systems produce significant numbers of false positive hits, leading to wrongful stops and harassment. If states block access to error rate data, the public cannot hold agencies accountable for these failures. Secrecy also makes it easier for police to maintain equipment that is expensive, often ineffective, and disproportionately used in communities of color. Without sunlight, these systems continue to expand with minimal accountability.</p><h2>7. A Better Path: Balancing Privacy and Public Oversight</h2><p>Rather than outright bans on records disclosure, lawmakers should craft policies that protect individual privacy while preserving the public's right to know. This could include limiting how long ALPR data is retained, prohibiting sharing with non-law enforcement entities, and requiring regular audits that are publicly released. For public records requests, agencies could strip personal identifiers before disclosure. The goal should be transparency on how systems operate—not hiding their existence or performance. EFF urges states to reject bills like those in Arizona and Connecticut and instead work toward <a href="#item5">solutions that respect both privacy and accountability</a>. The public deserves to know how its tax dollars are used and whether surveillance programs are actually making communities safer.</p><h2>Conclusion: The Fight for Transparency Continues</h2><p>Automated license plate readers pose serious privacy risks, but hiding their operations from the public only makes those risks harder to address. States considering restrictions on ALPR records should remember that FOIA laws exist precisely to prevent government secrecy. The path forward requires thoughtful legislation that limits data collection and retention—not one that blinds the public to the system's true impact. As EFF continues to fight for transparency, citizens must remain vigilant, using every tool available to keep surveillance in check. The right to access government records is a cornerstone of democracy, and it must not be dismantled in the name of privacy.</p>