The Nlets Crisis: How Secret Data Sharing Undermines Democracy and Privacy Rights

The Alarming Revelation of Unchecked Data Access

A coalition of 40 congressional Democrats, led by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, has sounded the alarm about a decades-old law enforcement data sharing program that threatens the privacy rights of millions of Americans. The program, known as Nlets (International Justice and Public Safety Network), originated in Arizona nearly 60 years ago and has evolved into a massive surveillance network that provides approximately 18,000 federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies across the United States and Canada with direct access to driver’s license databases and state-issued identification information.

The core concern raised by lawmakers is that this system allows outside agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to search and retrieve residents’ data without the knowledge or assistance of state employees. This means that when Arizona residents obtain driver’s licenses or state IDs, they unwittingly subject themselves to surveillance by thousands of agencies beyond their state’s control, with minimal oversight or accountability mechanisms in place.

How Nlets Operates and Expands Surveillance Capabilities

Nlets began in 1967 with the Arizona Highway Patrol (which became the Arizona Department of Public Safety in 1969) and has grown into an international network handling an astonishing 3.4 billion transactions annually. According to the organization’s tax filings, Nlets serves approximately 1.3 million individual users across 45,000 agencies through PC, mobile, and handheld devices. The system’s revenue has skyrocketed by 38% since 2020, reaching $18 million in 2023, while total assets increased by nearly 50% to $30 million.

The technical operation involves a complex system where law enforcement queries are validated through Originating Agency Identifiers before being forwarded to the state of record. The responses can include sensitive information such as active warrants, parole and probation status, vehicle registration details, and even access to Interpol data. Most alarmingly, the system now includes automated license plate reader data from Customs and Border Protection, allowing tracking of vehicle movements across U.S. borders within the previous 12 months.

The Disturbing Expansion to Private Sector Partners

Perhaps most concerning is the revelation that Nlets data access extends beyond law enforcement to “strategic partners” including private companies. These partners include red light traffic camera companies like AllTech Tracking (formerly SafeSpeed), which has been involved in an alleged bribery case in Illinois, and AngelTrax, which installs cameras on school buses and receives a major cut of fines from citations. Many of these companies have faced scrutiny in various states, with one recently paying $85,000 for violating Connecticut privacy laws, and another facing a class action lawsuit for exposing law enforcement officers’ private information.

This privatization of surveillance represents a dangerous departure from traditional law enforcement boundaries, creating profit incentives for mass surveillance while bypassing democratic accountability mechanisms. The fact that private companies can access vehicle registration data, even if not driver’s license information, still creates significant privacy risks and potential for abuse.

The Constitutional Crisis of Unchecked Executive Power

From a constitutional perspective, the Nlets situation represents everything that should concern defenders of democracy and civil liberties. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is being systematically eroded through technical complexity and bureaucratic obfuscation. When citizens cannot know who accesses their personal information, for what purposes, and with what oversight, we have effectively created a surveillance state operating in the shadows.

The lawmakers’ letter highlights a critical “information gap” where few state government officials understand how their residents’ data is being shared. This knowledge vacuum means that elected officials accountable to voters—governors, attorneys general, and legislators—cannot provide proper oversight or implement necessary safeguards. This represents a fundamental failure of democratic accountability, where technical systems operate beyond the reach of elected representation.

The Chilling Implications for Immigrant Communities

The specific concern about ICE’s access to this data cannot be overstated. Between October 2024 and October 2025, ICE conducted 292,114 searches of DMV data, with Homeland Security Investigations conducting an additional 605,116 searches. The potential for this data to feed into ICE’s facial recognition programs creates a dystopian reality where simply obtaining a driver’s license—often necessary for employment, banking, and daily life—becomes a mechanism for immigration enforcement.

This creates a chilling effect where immigrant communities may avoid essential services like driver’s licensing out of fear of surveillance and deportation. Such outcomes undermine public safety rather than enhance it, as unlicensed drivers and uninsured vehicles become more common when people fear interacting with government systems.

The Failure of Existing Safeguards and State Responses

The congressional Democrats noted that even states that have attempted to restrict data sharing with ICE face limitations because state police agencies like Arizona’s DPS act as “conduits” for out-of-state and federal access. Federal requests to the system can be vague, and because Nlets requests don’t indicate the purpose, states cannot determine whether a request should be blocked under their own policies.

Most disturbingly, the lawmakers explicitly stated that “the Trump administration cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and there are no meaningful legal consequences for federal officers who provide a false reason” for data requests. This admission highlights how technical systems without robust accountability mechanisms can become tools for abuse of power.

A Call for Transparency and Democratic Renewal

This crisis demands immediate action on multiple fronts. First, we need complete transparency about how Nlets operates, who has access to what data, and under what conditions. Second, states must implement technical controls that allow them to actually restrict data sharing according to their laws and values, rather than serving as passive conduits for federal surveillance.

Third, we need congressional hearings and potential legislation to establish clear rules, oversight mechanisms, and consequences for abuse of these systems. The fact that a program handling billions of sensitive transactions annually operates with such minimal public scrutiny is unacceptable in a democratic society.

Finally, we must confront the broader cultural acceptance of surveillance as an inevitable feature of modern life. Privacy is not a luxury or an obstacle to security—it is a fundamental right that enables freedom of thought, association, and movement. When we accept mass surveillance as necessary for safety, we sacrifice the very liberties that make safety meaningful.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Democratic Control Over Surveillance

The Nlets situation represents a microcosm of larger challenges facing our democracy in the digital age. Technical systems with profound implications for civil liberties have developed without adequate public debate, oversight, or accountability. The combination of mass data collection, limited transparency, and profit incentives creates a perfect storm for abuse of power.

As defenders of constitutional democracy, we must demand that surveillance systems operate within clear legal frameworks, with robust oversight, and with respect for the privacy rights that underpin our free society. The response from Governor Hobbs and other state leaders will test their commitment to these principles—and whether we can reclaim democratic control over the technologies that increasingly shape our lives.

The time for passive acceptance of surveillance creep is over. We must insist that our elected officials understand these systems, implement meaningful safeguards, and ensure that technology serves democracy rather than undermines it. Our constitutional rights depend on it.