I've read with interest the various opinions on the license plate reader acquisition and can't resist sharing my own two cents.
First, thanks to Chief Robinson for making the proposal public and braving the dust up that has resulted. Whatever one may think about license plate readers, we should all recognize the righteous tone of public debate itself can become a disincentive to transparency. Chief Robinson has resisted the temptation to "ask forgiveness later" and forthrightly put this before the townspeople. He deserves our thanks and encouragement to continue to favor transparency over expediency.
Second, although we get chided for our unseemly zest for controversy, the Norwich listserv protagonists are doing a public service to all readers by stirring the pot and expressing themselves. I had never heard of LPRs or considered the privacy implications until these posts started flooding in. I may not agree with some/most of the posts, but I appreciate the viewpoints and value the debate.
To some degree, whether Norwich puts in place a license plate reader is irrelevant. We can be fairly confident some neighboring towns, state and federal law enforcement are using LPRs and, as the cost of these units declines, the use will only become more widespread. For those who fear the criminal intentions of their fellow citizens more than they fear the authoritarian tendencies of government, that's probably a good thing.
For those who are more concerned that these technologies will be abused by law enforcement -- and face it, there will abuses be some law enforcement elements somewhere in this country -- will vocal resistance to LPRs here in Norwich, in some small part, help keep big brother at bay? I don't know, but vocal vigilance regarding personal liberties is itself a healthy habit to encourage.
The recent public tussle regarding Hartford police practices is a good example. While efforts to have those practices publicly repudiated -- and the supporting records made public -- have been rejected by the Attorney General and VT Supreme Court, the net effect upon Hartford police has probably been positive. Competent professionals adjust to new realities. It's fair to say Hartford police are viewed more skeptically today than they were three years ago and, if that matters to those police officers, they will critique their own procedures with an eye to restoring trust. Without agitation from the Valley News and civil libertarians, those criticized practices become habits and dire abuses ensue, to everyone's discredit.
First, thanks to Chief Robinson for making the proposal public and braving the dust up that has resulted. Whatever one may think about license plate readers, we should all recognize the righteous tone of public debate itself can become a disincentive to transparency. Chief Robinson has resisted the temptation to "ask forgiveness later" and forthrightly put this before the townspeople. He deserves our thanks and encouragement to continue to favor transparency over expediency.
Second, although we get chided for our unseemly zest for controversy, the Norwich listserv protagonists are doing a public service to all readers by stirring the pot and expressing themselves. I had never heard of LPRs or considered the privacy implications until these posts started flooding in. I may not agree with some/most of the posts, but I appreciate the viewpoints and value the debate.
To some degree, whether Norwich puts in place a license plate reader is irrelevant. We can be fairly confident some neighboring towns, state and federal law enforcement are using LPRs and, as the cost of these units declines, the use will only become more widespread. For those who fear the criminal intentions of their fellow citizens more than they fear the authoritarian tendencies of government, that's probably a good thing.
For those who are more concerned that these technologies will be abused by law enforcement -- and face it, there will abuses be some law enforcement elements somewhere in this country -- will vocal resistance to LPRs here in Norwich, in some small part, help keep big brother at bay? I don't know, but vocal vigilance regarding personal liberties is itself a healthy habit to encourage.
The recent public tussle regarding Hartford police practices is a good example. While efforts to have those practices publicly repudiated -- and the supporting records made public -- have been rejected by the Attorney General and VT Supreme Court, the net effect upon Hartford police has probably been positive. Competent professionals adjust to new realities. It's fair to say Hartford police are viewed more skeptically today than they were three years ago and, if that matters to those police officers, they will critique their own procedures with an eye to restoring trust. Without agitation from the Valley News and civil libertarians, those criticized practices become habits and dire abuses ensue, to everyone's discredit.
No comments:
Post a Comment