In communities across California, conversations around public safety are becoming
increasingly polarized. At the center of many of these debates is the role of technology,
particularly tools like license plate reader (LPR) technology, which have helped law
enforcement identify stolen vehicles, locate missing persons, and solve serious crimes.
But too often, these conversations are driven by fear rather than facts.
As a veteran who has spent 16 years in service to this country, I have seen firsthand
what it means to operate in environments where the right tools can make the difference
between safety and vulnerability. Today, in my work supporting business communities
across Southern California, I see a similar dynamic playing out at the local level.
Communities are being asked to make decisions about public safety tools without fully
considering the long-term consequences.
The reality is this: when we remove technology designed to help prevent and solve
crime, we are not eliminating risk. We are shifting it. And more often than not, that risk is
absorbed by the very communities already navigating the greatest challenges.
For small business owners, particularly those in underserved communities, public safety
is not an abstract policy issue. It is directly tied to their ability to operate, to hire, and to
grow. When theft, vandalism, or violence increase, the ripple effects are immediate and
lasting.
LPR technology, when used responsibly, is one of the tools that can help address these
challenges.
That does not mean there are no valid concerns. Questions around data privacy,
accountability, and oversight are important and deserve thoughtful attention. But
eliminating these tools altogether is not the solution.
In fact, it risks creating a false choice between safety and accountability.
We can, and should, do both.
Local jurisdictions already have the authority to implement clear policies around how
LPR technology is used, how data is stored, and who has access to it. These decisions
are made at the city level, where leaders are closest to the communities they serve and
best positioned to put appropriate safeguards in place.
The focus, then, should not be on whether these tools exist, but on how they are
governed.
Are there clear use policies?
Is there transparency around data access?
Are there accountability measures in place to prevent misuse?
These are the questions that deserve our attention.
What we are seeing too often, however, is a different pattern. In moments of heightened
concern or public pressure, there is a tendency to move quickly toward sweeping policy
changes. Contracts are canceled. Programs are halted. Tools are removed.
But these decisions are often made without a full understanding of what is lost in the
process.
Public safety requires a long-term view. It requires us to move beyond reaction and
toward thoughtful, measured decision-making.
We should be asking how to improve systems, not how to dismantle them.
We should be working to ensure that technology is used responsibly, not abandoning it
altogether.
And we should be centering the voices of those most impacted, including families,
workers, and business owners who experience the real-world consequences of these
decisions every day.
The goal is not to choose between innovation and accountability. It is to build systems
that reflect both.
Because when we get this wrong, it is not policymakers who feel the immediate impact.
It is our communities.
And they deserve better than reactionary solutions.
They deserve policies rooted in reason, informed by experience, and focused on long-
term safety and stability.
Roberto Arnold is Founder and Chairman of the Multicultural Business Alliance and the
California Multicultural Business Alliance, and a U.S. Army veteran.