Flock Cameras: Misrepresented or Public Safety Threat?
From August 16-22, American citizens across the country came together for a week of action against automated license plate readers (ALPRs). Most recognizably, a movement called “DeFlock” has been circulating the internet in an attempt to shut down the use of Flock ALPRs. In as close as Fremont, California, citizens gathered to protest Flock. With all the opposition circulating, one may ask themselves why these ALPRs still seem to be added to more cities nationwide?
Flock cameras are used in order to track license plates and identify information on cars. Many police departments have set up online portals in order to offer full transparency to the public regarding the use of Flock cameras.
The data on the Hayward CA Flock Transparency Portal shows that in the city of Hayward there are 85 active cameras. The data on this website displays that the information gathered by Hayward Flock cameras is significantly more accessible in comparison to reduced accessibility provided by many cities in response to recent controversies.
However, movements such as DeFlock are not satisfied with these results and wish to instead have these cameras removed from public use entirely. Their website makes claims as shocking as that the transparency portals often have incomplete or inflated information, the company sells data to Russian hacking forums, the use of the cameras lead to unjust and dangerous police encounters, and that they are used for racist policing.
In an interview with a Lieutenant from a Bay Area law-enforcement agency, some of the popular concerns were addressed from the perspective of police.
The Lieutenant highlighted how efficient crime investigations have become since the installation of these cameras in their area. For example, they could solve a burglary case which may have been impossible or extremely lengthy without the use of these cameras.
In response to past cases of misuse that have already been documented, he stated that any tech has the potential for misuse. However, he reminded that there’s always sensitive information available to law enforcement so it’s a matter of agency policy and ensuring that everyone is following these policies. He said that Flock is not taking pictures of private views, it is the same as if there was an officer standing on the corner, just much more efficient.
He compared the question of mass surveillance to when officers began to be required to use body-worn cameras. Many officers were worried over the constant tracking, but they’ve shown to be helpful tools in public safety. Having tools such as body-worn cameras and Flock cameras help with understaffed agencies and assists in investigations.
The people who have access to the cameras and footage must go through extensive annual training in law-enforcement on the strict-policies. For example, he listed that there are safeguards within the system and many tools to help minimize or identify abuse. Everything has to be tied to the specific case or have a reason and category, all audited periodically, depending on the agency. Flock developed tools to automate the process. It flags certain queries or behaviors such as multiple searches of the same person or the same search being done consistently.
Data can be requested from another agency but the process and length can change. Having access to Flock allows them to be more efficient. It depends on the agency as to who can use the information.
The fourth amendment of the U.S. constitution is often called into question by anti-Flock advocacy groups. Has the government gone too far, or is it completely within their powers to implement and use LPRs? Do Flock cameras increase public safety, or violate their rights? Are Flock cameras unjustly represented or are they a personal security threat? It is up to you, the individual American, to make this determination for yourself based on your own research.