Katherine Revello

Priced Out: FOI requesters sound the alarm as hourly FOIA fees may be coming to Connecticut Read More at Inside Investigator >>

My latest investigation takes a look at the pending cases seeking to rewrite CT's FOIA law to allow agencies to charge hourly fees for time spent searching for records - and how some could be priced out of requests should the effort succeed.

insideinvestigator.org/priced-out-f...

Exempting ALPR data from FOIA will do nothing to stop abuses by bad government actors. All it will do is hamstring the ability of journalists and privacy advocates to uncover abuse that is ongoing.

The majority of Section 18 places limits on ALPR data sharing, largely as a result of stories it has been accessed by immigration enforcement officials.

Banning ALPR data from FOIA is at odds with the accountability measures the rest of this section is trying to prevent.

But I make an exception to that policy when the tools I rely on to do my job and that protect government accountability and transparency (both of which are crucial to good journalism) come under threat. And that's what's happening with this proposed FOIA exception.

As a journalist, I have no opinion about those other sections. I don't usually comment on legislation or testify on bills in order to preserve my impartiality.

Transparency Update: ALPR exemption kneecaps journalists Read More at Inside Investigator >>

SB 4 is getting a public hearing today. That's the other bill seeking to exempt ALPR information from FOIA. The proposed ban is buried in a huge consumer privacy bill and will get little attention.

I've written about why it's a terrible idea here: insideinvestigator.org/transparency...

Cutting off our access to that data doesn't stop abuse. It just makes it more difficult to expose. It's giving ALPR companies (which are private entities and not subject to FOIA) exactly what they want: more room to operate in secret.

Exempting ALPR data from FOIA is at odds with the accountability measures limiting the use of ALPR technology in this bill and in SB 4.

Journalists and privacy organizations have used FOIA to break a lot of stories that have sounded the alarm about how ALPR is being used.

Those databases are not publicly accessible and the information that's released when you FOI ALPR data is not enough for the public to track or identify people.

Law enforcement are not using FOIA to get ALPR data to track people because, again, they have other means of doing so.

To reiterate a point I've been making frequently: ALPR cameras do collect massive amounts of data. That law enforcement can see and use it without limits is extremely concerning.

But a lot of concern about that use is because they have access to separate systems that can be used to track people.

It doesn't place limits on government actors trying to abuse ALPR data. It places limits on journalists and the public who want to know more about how the technology is being used.

Once again, I'm just baffled why that exemption is included in this bill. The majority of these provisions establish good accountability limits on ALPRs.

Banning the public from seeing ALPR data doesn't accomplish the same end.

HOWEVER, the bill would also exempt ALPR data from FOIA. It is slightly better in that it specifies that you can disclose camera locations and data derived from audits.

It would also require public agencies to publish written usage and privacy policies and gives individuals the ability to sue law enforcement found to have violated the law.

CT data could also only be shared with other in-state agencies or with MA, NY and RI. And federal access would be limited to complying with warrants, terrorism related searches, or searches about motor vehicle registration.

Unlike the other bill, this one is primarily aimed at limiting how ALPRs can be used.

Police are banned from using them except to compare hits to hotlists. Data would have to be deleted every 7 days. And, like the other bill, ALPRs couldn't be used for immigration enforcement.

There's now a second bill to exempt ALPR data from FOIA here in CT:

www.cga.ct.gov/2026/TOB/H/P...

Flock's CEO has equated FOI requests about data his company is collecting to attacks on cops.

A FOIA request I sent to Manchester PD captured numerous copies of that email, sent to dept. members with Flock access.

Exempting ALPR data from FOIA is giving Flock what they want.

More on what exactly is in the 'consumer privacy' bill to exempt ALPR info from FOIA here: insideinvestigator.org/bill-would-b...

This bill would make that watchdog function that journalists provide impossible. It might stop information from being shared with bad government actors, but it will also make public oversight impossible.

I'm currently fighting Manchester Police Department for access to their ALPR data. The public has a right to know what information is being collected through dragnet surveillance and how it's being used.

Here in CT and elsewhere, journalists have exposed extremely concerning practices of Flock Safety and other ALPR companies through public records requests.

Government bad actors abusing data sharing is a real concern. But abuses can be reformed without permanently putting public information outside the scope of public scrutiny, which is what will happen if this passes.

This is a very bad move for transparency. The bill specifically calls out sharing of ALPR data with ICE and other federal agencies, which was rumored to be one of the reasons lawmakers were bringing it forward.

New CT bill would exempt ALPR data from FOIA: www.cga.ct.gov/2026/TOB/S/P...

The US DOJ is currently suing CT because the state denied access to the voter file. That request included information that is not usually available, like SSNs. Thomas said during a public hearing this week that lawsuit is not the reason behind the change but isn't unrelated.

The changes to voter file access have received criticism because terms like state governmental purpose and journalist purpose are not defined and the language gives SOTS Stephanie Thomas authority to determine what they mean.

Both the language to close the referenda ballot 'loophole' and to restrict access to CT's voter files for "state governmental purposes" and to individuals like journalists and scholars are in the emergency certification bill the Senate is taking up today.

GAE hears bills to change FOI ballot laws Read More at Inside Investigator >>

Story here: insideinvestigator.org/gae-hears-bi...

Now, the Secretary of the State's office, which did not intervene in the FOIC case but did send an unsigned, undated memo to the commission after their initial ruling, is for a bill to close that 'loophole,' but not by clarifying either part of statute at issue in LaChapelle's case.