Letter: Flock Cameras – Public Safety and Privacy Can Coexist
Audio By Carbonatix
We-Ha.com welcomes Letters to the Editor from the public, including endorsements. Letters submitted by political candidates will be considered for publication up to 14 days prior to an election and most will be published within 48 hours of receipt. Letters that contain personal attacks or include profanity of any type will not be published. Rebuttals to letters should be submitted as a separate document if possible. Please provide your full name and town, as well as your phone number at the end of the letter. Phone numbers will not be published but are required in case verification is needed. Please submit letters to [email protected].
To the Editor:
Over the last several days, West Hartford police have been involved in two high-profile cases where automated license plate readers helped officers locate vehicles they were looking for.
So, what exactly is an automated license plate reader?
Simply put, these cameras read license plates and can alert police when a vehicle connected to a stolen car, wanted person or criminal investigation passes one of them. Here in West Hartford, we know many of these devices as Flock cameras because they are made by Flock Safety.
I think we need to have an honest conversation about them, especially as we approach another election season.
I understand the concerns about Flock cameras. People have legitimate questions about privacy, how long information is stored, who can access it and which agencies can receive it. Those questions deserve answers.
At the same time, we shouldn’t ignore what has happened right here in our community.
On September 29, Middletown police were searching for a suspect in a homicide. Information about the vehicle connected to that investigation was shared with other law enforcement agencies. A Flock camera in West Hartford alerted police to the vehicle. Officers located it, and after a pursuit that continued into Hartford, the suspect was eventually taken into custody.
Just a few days later, West Hartford police received another automated license plate reader alert, this time for a stolen BMW M6 in the New Park Avenue area. Detectives located the BMW and another vehicle that had been traveling with it. Two men were arrested. Police said one was driving the stolen BMW and the other was found carrying an illegal firearm.
These aren’t the only examples.
In August, an officer in Saratoga Springs, New York, received a license plate reader alert for a vehicle wanted by Rocky Hill police in connection with a homicide. The officer located the vehicle and the suspect was taken into custody.
Think about that. A police department in Connecticut was looking for a vehicle connected to a homicide, and an officer in another state was able to receive that information while on patrol.
That is what this technology can do.
So where does the controversy come from?
For me, the concern isn’t whether the technology exists. The concern should be how we make sure it isn’t abused.
Put policies in place. Limit how long information can be kept. Make sure officers have a legitimate law enforcement reason to search the system. Keep records of who accesses it. Audit those searches. Establish consequences when someone misuses the information.
Connecticut has already taken steps in that direction with new rules governing how automated license plate reader information can be accessed, retained and shared.
Law enforcement agencies have shared information with each other for decades. That isn’t new. What has changed is how quickly information can now get from one department to another.
When police are looking for someone accused of a serious violent crime, minutes matter.
Could police have eventually located the individuals involved in these three cases without license plate readers? Maybe. We will never know. What we do know is that in each case, this technology provided officers with information that helped them locate a vehicle they were actively searching for.
I believe Flock cameras, when used properly, can be a valuable public safety tool.
That doesn’t mean giving law enforcement unlimited access to people’s information. It doesn’t mean ignoring privacy concerns. And it certainly doesn’t mean operating these systems without oversight.
It means recognizing the value of the technology while putting strong protections around its use.
We can protect people’s privacy while also giving police tools that can help locate stolen vehicles and people accused of serious crimes.
Those two things don’t have to be in conflict.
We should demand both.
Alberto Cortes
West Hartford
One issue that has received too little attention is the West Hartford Police Department’s lack of responsiveness to Freedom of Information requests concerning Flock. I am aware of several requests that have been outstanding for months without the requested records being provided.
My own request is now 56 days old. It seeks existing audit logs showing which outside agencies searched West Hartford’s Flock data, when, and for what stated purpose, along with records of the department’s data-sharing settings. I specifically excluded license plate numbers and vehicle photographs. The department acknowledged my request on August 12. Since then, I have received no records, explanation for the delay, or estimated completion date.
Flock’s own published policy asks customers to allow 14 calendar days for bulk data requests, although complex requests may take longer. If there is a specific obstacle to fulfilling mine, the department should explain it.
Without these records, how can residents independently verify that the system is being used properly and that access complies with applicable laws and department policies? Assurances of responsible use are only meaningful when the public can examine the records supporting them. Transparency should be part of operating this system, not something residents must spend months pursuing.
Thanks to Aleberto Cortes for some good old common sense Like any new technolpgy, what we need are better and clearer guardrails up front. What we do not need is hysteria and vigiliantees who wreck these installations – including one on North Main Street that was actually installed to help with pedestrian street-crossing.
Kevin, ALPRs do not interact with crosswalk infrastructure. Can you clarify what you meant? I don’t think you’re talking about an ALPR.
That said, the ALPR outside SYC was indeed cut down.
The root of this kind of vigilantism is anger at being surveilled combined with the sense that there is no legal recourse.
If we’re serious about eliminating vigilantism, then we should create a more rigorous public approval process in which the public has an actual say in their data being collected in the first place.
That’s what CT and West Hartford do for ATESD (red light and speed cameras).
This idea was included in the deflock West Hartford op-ed from a week or so ago on weha.com.
The controversy comes from the fact that people don’t like being watched all the time. Flock ALPR systems form a dragnet that captures patterns of life of everyone, not just criminals.
While the town claims it owns the data, Flock maintains a universal right to use it. There’s no way to audit a private company’s usage.
The federal government already has a voracious appetite for LPR and other personal data right now. What would West Hartford do if it our data were discovered in fed databases? How would auditing fed data even work?
Flock says they don’t sell the data but Wisconsin police departments recently parted ways with the company when Flock reps tried to do just that.
There aren’t studies showing a significant positive impact on clearance rates. Go read about Atlanta’s data published recently in Futurism and the Atlanta Community Press Collective.
The incessant presentation of positive anecdotes absent a thoughtful discussion of the downsides is worn out, and does not address peoples’ actual concerns. What it does is get people more fired up. So, thanks for that, I guess?
Thank you, Bill, for trying to get information out of the weha PD.
Flock cameras are simply evil. Secret police forces across time and space stand with mouths agape at the amount of govt surveillance we suffer under.
The letter writer mentions stolen cars. LAPD just got rid of their mass surveillance cameras in some part because Flock cameras returned over 100 false positives in just August.
Can you imagine what the framers of our country would say and do if informed the king had the means to know where everyone is at all times? I don’t think they’d take too kindly to that kind of intrusion. Neither should we.
One more thing. Towns and states may think by passing laws they can curtail abuses of their mass surveillance system.
Left unsaid is the ability of the federal govt to simply commandeer the data collected by every single spy camera in HIDTAs. Those are High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas – locally, this is the greater Hartford area up to Springfield.
We know ICE is using this data. West Hartford is participating in human trafficking. This has to stop.
There are inherent risks in a private corporation like Flock Safety amassing data on the location and habits of Americans. Flock contracts grant the company broad use of our data in ways that are opaque, We simply don’t know. We do know that billionaires with the blessing of the federal government are consolidating data on immigrants and Americans broadly from a range of sources including Medicaid, court records, plate readers, DMV, and IRS files. (For example, Palantir’s “ELITE” app used by ICE agents.) Some of us are following this dangerous trend and others are claiming this is hysteria or simply spreading disinformation. We need to educate ourselves and others on the threats of AI-assisted mass surveillance. In other words, to understand privacy risks, you have to do your homework.