Tempe, Arizona, and a growing list of local governments are shutting down Flock Safety camera networks amid concerns about warrantless tracking, artificial intelligence search capabilities and documented misuse, with more than 100 jurisdictions reported to have canceled contracts with automated license plate reader providers.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Local governments around the country are reconsidering automated license plate reader networks as concerns grow over how much information the cameras collect, how officers can search that data and whether the systems enable widespread monitoring of people who are not suspected of crimes.
Tempe, Arizona, became one of the latest cities to abandon Flock Safety cameras, announcing Wednesday that it had disabled its system and would terminate its contract with the company.
City officials acknowledged that the cameras had assisted police investigations but concluded that mounting concerns about misuse outweighed those benefits.
“While the cameras have helped Tempe Police solve crimes, recent misuse of automated license plate reader systems in Arizona and nationwide has raised concerns about the risks that come with the technology,” the city said.
Tempe said officials had found no evidence that the city’s own Flock system had been misused.
Mayor Corey Woods nevertheless said the possibility of abuse was enough to warrant removing the cameras.
The devices have helped law enforcement, Woods said, “but the risk of misuse is too great.”
“We have to be able to provide public safety in a way that maintains the trust of our community,” Woods said. “For Tempe, that means taking these cameras down.”
Flock Safety has deployed thousands of cameras across 49 states.
Unlike ordinary traffic cameras that capture isolated incidents, automated license plate readers can continuously record identifying information from passing vehicles. Information collected through Flock systems can then be made available to law enforcement agencies through the company’s platform.
The scale and searchability of those records have increasingly become points of contention.
Tempe is not alone in withdrawing from the technology.
Cave Creek, Arizona; Bellingham, Massachusetts; and several counties in Texas have also announced this month that they are ending their use of Flock cameras.
In Bellingham, concerns intensified after police discovered that the system offered capabilities beyond what officials believed they had presented to residents when the technology was introduced.
Police Chief Kenneth Fitzgerald said officials learned during a recent criminal investigation that Flock offered an artificial intelligence-powered feature called Free Form.
The tool allows users to search video information through ordinary-language queries rather than limiting searches to a specific license plate.
“Those features go beyond what most people would think of as a traditional license plate reader,” Fitzgerald said.
“That concerned me because I had previously told the public, based on our understanding of the system, that our Flock technology was a license plate reader only.”
The discovery illustrated a broader concern raised by privacy advocates: technology acquired for a relatively narrow policing purpose can gain additional capabilities that significantly expand how collected information can be analyzed.
Texas officials have voiced similar objections, focusing more directly on the ability of the cameras to record the movements of ordinary motorists.
After commissioners in Hood County voted to remove the cameras, John Shirley, a constable in one of the county’s precincts, said he planned to cover them until they could be physically taken down.
“These cameras were constantly scanning and recording regular folks just going about their day. That kind of permanent, warrantless tracking doesn’t belong in a free society,” Shirley wrote in an Aug. 15 Facebook post. “By unplugging and covering them, we’re making it clear: privacy isn’t optional, and mass surveillance isn’t how we do things here.”
Concerns about hypothetical abuse have been accompanied by actual criminal allegations involving use of Flock data.
Multiple law enforcement officers have been charged with crimes for allegedly misusing information available through the system, including an officer in North Carolina.
Those cases have contributed to increased scrutiny of who can access license plate information, what justification officers need before conducting searches and how effectively departments monitor use of the databases.
According to a database maintained by the Institute for Justice, more than 100 jurisdictions have canceled agreements with Flock Safety or other automated license plate reader providers.
The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit law firm that describes its mission as combating government abuse.
Institute attorney Michael Soyfer said local governments have legitimate reasons to reconsider the rapidly expanding technology.
“Local governments have good reasons to want to stem the proliferation of these mass surveillance tools,” Soyfer said.
He argued that automated plate readers operate differently from investigative tools narrowly focused on a particular suspect.
“Rather than narrowly target criminals, [automated license plate readers] collect troves of data on ordinary people’s movements and compile them in a database officers can freely access on demand,” Soyfer said. “That has predictably led to widespread abuse, which will continue until we implement robust safeguards like a warrant requirement.”
The debate centers largely on the distinction between capturing information visible in public and creating a searchable historical record of people’s movements.
A license plate can generally be seen by anyone observing a vehicle on a public road. Networked cameras, however, can potentially collect that information across many locations and retain it in a database that allows investigators to reconstruct where vehicles have traveled.
Critics say the breadth of those databases can transform routine observations into a form of mass location tracking.
Law enforcement agencies have also credited the technology with helping solve crimes, as Tempe acknowledged in announcing its decision.
That has left communities weighing faster investigative capabilities against questions about privacy, access controls and the potential for information to be used for purposes residents did not anticipate.
Flock has responded to some of the concerns by changing its data-retention policies.
Earlier in August, the company announced that its default retention period would be shortened from 30 days to one week, although certain exceptions would apply.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley said captured information will now generally disappear from customer databases after seven days unless investigators have identified it as evidence.
“Every image our cameras capture is by default purged from the customer’s database after one week, unless it becomes evidence in an active criminal investigation,” Langley said in a video statement.
Flock did not respond to a request for comment about the municipalities ending their contracts.
Shorter retention could reduce the amount of historical information available in the system at any given time, but critics continue to raise concerns about the initial collection of data, access by law enforcement agencies and advanced search functions such as Free Form.
The decisions in Tempe, Bellingham and Texas also show that local objections are not based on a single issue.
In Tempe, officials emphasized documented misuse elsewhere and maintaining community trust despite finding no wrongdoing involving their own system.
Bellingham officials focused on discovering AI capabilities that exceeded their previous understanding of what the cameras could do.
In Hood County, the opposition centered on the principle of continuously recording motorists who had done nothing to attract police suspicion.
Together, those disputes are driving a broader reassessment of automated license plate readers at the local level.
The technology’s ability to help police identify vehicles and investigate crimes is not necessarily in dispute. The emerging question for municipalities is whether those benefits justify building databases capable of recording and searching the everyday movements of large numbers of people.
For more than 100 jurisdictions that have reportedly terminated agreements involving Flock or similar providers, the balance has shifted toward limiting the technology.
Tempe has now reached the same conclusion.
Although city officials said their cameras helped solve crimes and found no evidence that Tempe officers misused them, the city determined that maintaining public trust required shutting down the network rather than accepting the possibility that its surveillance capabilities could eventually be abused.
Original article
Comments