In Nevada, an unmanned camera on the side of the road or at an intersection can't issue you a traffic citation — but the surveillance infrastructure it represents is more worrisome. 

Automatic license plate readers are becoming an increasingly common policing tool for law enforcement throughout the nation. However, as The Nevada Independent reported recently, use of such cameras in Nevada comes with little or no oversight from the public. 

The technology has rightfully raised serious concerns among civil rights organizations and citizens across the country, as it represents a growing surveillance infrastructure that echoes the sort of Orwellian authoritarianism usually reserved for dystopian science fiction stories. 

Thankfully, some Nevada lawmakers seem to be noticing the potential danger of leaving the use of such technology unregulated. Assm. Selena Torres-Fossett (D-Las Vegas) described it as a "very Big Brother" sort of surveillance apparatus — which is true, but also somewhat ironic considering she pushed for traffic enforcement cameras in the last legislative session. 

Hypocrisy aside, Torres-Fossett is correct to be concerned about law enforcement's partnership with a privately run technology company that spies on motorists without articulable cause. After all, government policing programs rarely contain themselves to narrow applications, and when combined with the profit and corporate incentives of the private sector, things can get out of hand pretty quickly. 

For example, the company that runs the camera systems in Las Vegas, Flock Safety, has already started to expand its mission and services well beyond passive surveillance of license plates. Leaked internal memos from last year indicate the company is planning to plug its database into commercial data brokers that offer "people lookup" services, allowing private and government "clients" to easily identify and track the movements of specific people without a warrant or court order.

Just as concerning, however, is Flock's announcement of a "collaborative hub designed to help private sector organizations work together to solve and prevent crime."  According to the company, users of the database will be able to "add vehicles to Flock Hotlists," allowing agencies and businesses to "identify patterns, suspects, and criminal networks that might not be apparent to a single security team."

In other words, Flock will use its massive database to manufacture reasons for businesses, security teams and potentially even law enforcement to investigate "suspicious" individuals when there would otherwise be no reason to do so. Or, as the American Civil Liberties Union put it, the camera network will not be used merely to investigate individuals based on suspicion, but will instead be used "to generate suspicion itself." 

If that sounds like something out of Minority Report, that's because it pretty much is. 

And that form of "pre-crime" policing isn't the only concern for ordinary citizens. Making matters even worse is the fact that the use of such technology by law enforcement isn't yet governed by any reasonable regulatory framework or transparency requirements in Nevada. Indeed, in Las Vegas, law enforcement was even able to skirt public discussion before using Flock's technology by receiving the cameras as a "gift" — leading to serious questions about when, where and how Flock's technology is being used by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. 

That lack of transparency is a legitimate reason for concern, as the potential for law enforcement to expand (or abuse) its use of automatic license plate reader technology is seemingly unrestricted. And, as the decades-long "War on Drugs" has proved, aggressive or abusive policing tactics aren't terribly easy to reverse once they become a part of law enforcement's repertoire. 

Unfortunately, because companies such as Flock are private entities, they are naturally inclined to expand how their massive database and surveillance technology can be used by "clients" — creating new features for the sort of "pre-crime" policing and tracking abilities that are ripe for misuse and abuse. Without strict public oversight and regulatory guardrails put in place for how or when law enforcement can use those features, the proliferation of automatic license plate readers in Nevada represents a serious threat to civil liberties.  

To be sure, in today's digital world, we're already being tracked and surveilled at an unprecedented rate by tech giants, advertisers and countless other private sector entities. However, government's ability to do so without limit is something far more sinister. Its power to track our comings and goings without reason, fish for "suspicious" activity using algorithms or comb through national databases in an attempt to stumble across something worthy of investigation is the sort of thing that belongs in a George Orwell novel. 

Like those ticket-issuing red light cameras we've already banned, such unrestricted surveillance infrastructure has no place on Nevada's roadways. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas and founder of Schaus Creative LLC, an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichaelor on Substack @creativediscourse.