Police database abuse makes headlines. The larger question is why the movements of millions of innocent Americans are being recorded and retained in the first place.
Good governance is the keystone to any intrusive technology.
Trust is the central theme to any controversial police incident or technology. If you can nibble away at the trust, you can delegitimize the institution. There is a segment at both ends of the political spectrum that seems to take pleasure in finding new things and people to demonize. Flock is like the perfect stick to flog the police “trust” and one that both have found common ground. Strange bedfellows we could say. Maybe we will see them all holding hands and signs together at the next deflock protest.
You make an excellent point in that Police and Community leaders must understand the forces they are up against. This does not mean caving and getting defensive, it means having the courage to bring people to the table to find a way to make it work. If Flock leadership would have done this from the start instead of getting defensive and trying to hide behind case successes, they would have worked more publicly to acknowledge the valid concerns of how the data is used and stored. But they didn’t, and then threw gas on the fire.
We need this technology. The data is clear that it is one of the most effective crime fighting tools we have ever used in law enforcement. But it does have high potential for abuse.
Last week in our sleepy, quiet, Shangri-La, university town, a baby was abducted by a woman posing as babysitter. She came from several states away. Thankfully, the baby was located safely within hours in a neighboring state. The deflockers who have been vocal and public in their outrage went eerily silent. We don’t yet know what role the Flock ALPR cameras may or may not have played in this case, but I, for one, was glad we had them when the police were notified and began the intense investigation.
That is a very well thought out viewpoint. Today, we have signed most of our public privacy away largely through our own camera that immediately upload our photos to ‘the cloud’ which is just a third party data center. Our current law enforcement audit system is totally broken. Usernames were easy to discern by seniority. Too often it is an analyst, low on the totem pole, who has to question data transactions. I think the audits should be blind, where the analyst is looking at the data from a similar sized agency. Today AI should be able to help with that. It is a power imbalance that is easily resolved.
Well done, Roland, and I also agree with Coptimizer. While we should indeed have discussions about abuses, I also don't think effective life-saving technology should be discounted. There has to be middle ground somewhere here.
In case anyone's interested, several bills have been introduced in Congress regarding the federal government's use of this technology.
This includes PRIVACY Act (H.R. 9716), which would, in part, require federal law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing data from an ALPR. This is reasonable.
Another bill called the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act (H.R. 9800), prohibits federal agencies from purchasing, using or accessing these systems.
You are right. There needs to be some middle ground. What is the day/hour range that data populates for Amber Alerts and use that as the statistical border for the requirement of a Fourth Amendment warrant to get the remaining days of data. One thing is certain, few things are passing in the federal system right now.
To your last sentence, yes, and that includes police and public safety legislation. Even bills with bipartisan support are struggling, all as Senate is on yet another recess. And this is with Republicans holding the balance of power.
I spoke to my cousin's husband who is a cop. I have no reason to believe he would lie to me about this topic especially since he is a family member. The use of FLOCK cameras system is not used to monitor random people. They use the system to track people they have reasonable suspicion and/or subsequent probable cause to believe they committed crime. It's not random selection. It's more like, a bank robber fled in a blue Chevy Pickup with an extended cab and black rims. They would then begin to look for a vehicle fitting that description that was near the bank on that particular date and time. If they have a license plate, that will narrow down their search and the search doesn't have to be as broad. It may start off broad especially if there are several trucks that fit description, but typically they have additional information that helps them narrow down search. For example, a witness from the bank robbery saw the truck had a Chicago Bears sticker on the bumper. My understanding is that it's a waste of valuable time and an inefficient use of the system if someone is randomly checking license plates. Oh, and the data has shelf life, so the recordings don't stay in the system forever. So, I think the paranoia is unnecessary.
Your cousin’s husband is correct. Flock, and many other vendors, have a legal right to photograph and warehouse the data for a default of 30 days. ALPR programs are a 21st century crime fighting success. We’ve seen the examples of corrupt law enforcement officers using the system to stalk former or potential love interests. The mere existence of such a data collection vault deserves the highest level of security.
Thank you for your reply, Roland. I sincerely mean that. So then let's go after the behavior not the system. What you said is, there have been examples of corrupt policemen that were using the system, to stalk former or potential love interests. Isn't that proof that someone is doing something right? Sounds like whomever those policemen were, were held accountable. I have been reading about stalking incidents decades before these systems existed. The medical field and teachers have the same issues with the data base they use. Stalking is stalking and it can be done by anyone, anywhere and anytime. There is a saying, it's not the arrow it's the archer. Thank you.
Good governance is the keystone to any intrusive technology.
Trust is the central theme to any controversial police incident or technology. If you can nibble away at the trust, you can delegitimize the institution. There is a segment at both ends of the political spectrum that seems to take pleasure in finding new things and people to demonize. Flock is like the perfect stick to flog the police “trust” and one that both have found common ground. Strange bedfellows we could say. Maybe we will see them all holding hands and signs together at the next deflock protest.
You make an excellent point in that Police and Community leaders must understand the forces they are up against. This does not mean caving and getting defensive, it means having the courage to bring people to the table to find a way to make it work. If Flock leadership would have done this from the start instead of getting defensive and trying to hide behind case successes, they would have worked more publicly to acknowledge the valid concerns of how the data is used and stored. But they didn’t, and then threw gas on the fire.
We need this technology. The data is clear that it is one of the most effective crime fighting tools we have ever used in law enforcement. But it does have high potential for abuse.
Last week in our sleepy, quiet, Shangri-La, university town, a baby was abducted by a woman posing as babysitter. She came from several states away. Thankfully, the baby was located safely within hours in a neighboring state. The deflockers who have been vocal and public in their outrage went eerily silent. We don’t yet know what role the Flock ALPR cameras may or may not have played in this case, but I, for one, was glad we had them when the police were notified and began the intense investigation.
And there is the answer.
That is a very well thought out viewpoint. Today, we have signed most of our public privacy away largely through our own camera that immediately upload our photos to ‘the cloud’ which is just a third party data center. Our current law enforcement audit system is totally broken. Usernames were easy to discern by seniority. Too often it is an analyst, low on the totem pole, who has to question data transactions. I think the audits should be blind, where the analyst is looking at the data from a similar sized agency. Today AI should be able to help with that. It is a power imbalance that is easily resolved.
Well done, Roland, and I also agree with Coptimizer. While we should indeed have discussions about abuses, I also don't think effective life-saving technology should be discounted. There has to be middle ground somewhere here.
In case anyone's interested, several bills have been introduced in Congress regarding the federal government's use of this technology.
This includes PRIVACY Act (H.R. 9716), which would, in part, require federal law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing data from an ALPR. This is reasonable.
Another bill called the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act (H.R. 9800), prohibits federal agencies from purchasing, using or accessing these systems.
Regarding the PRIVACY Act, what happens if law enforcement needs immediate data access to save lives.
There are a lot of considerations, that is for certain.
You are right. There needs to be some middle ground. What is the day/hour range that data populates for Amber Alerts and use that as the statistical border for the requirement of a Fourth Amendment warrant to get the remaining days of data. One thing is certain, few things are passing in the federal system right now.
To your last sentence, yes, and that includes police and public safety legislation. Even bills with bipartisan support are struggling, all as Senate is on yet another recess. And this is with Republicans holding the balance of power.
Good reasons not to trust ANY police or sheriff or other government law enforcement.
You don't do a very good job of policing your own people, much less the criminal elements of society.
Sorry, we are forced to recruit from the human race.
I spoke to my cousin's husband who is a cop. I have no reason to believe he would lie to me about this topic especially since he is a family member. The use of FLOCK cameras system is not used to monitor random people. They use the system to track people they have reasonable suspicion and/or subsequent probable cause to believe they committed crime. It's not random selection. It's more like, a bank robber fled in a blue Chevy Pickup with an extended cab and black rims. They would then begin to look for a vehicle fitting that description that was near the bank on that particular date and time. If they have a license plate, that will narrow down their search and the search doesn't have to be as broad. It may start off broad especially if there are several trucks that fit description, but typically they have additional information that helps them narrow down search. For example, a witness from the bank robbery saw the truck had a Chicago Bears sticker on the bumper. My understanding is that it's a waste of valuable time and an inefficient use of the system if someone is randomly checking license plates. Oh, and the data has shelf life, so the recordings don't stay in the system forever. So, I think the paranoia is unnecessary.
Your cousin’s husband is correct. Flock, and many other vendors, have a legal right to photograph and warehouse the data for a default of 30 days. ALPR programs are a 21st century crime fighting success. We’ve seen the examples of corrupt law enforcement officers using the system to stalk former or potential love interests. The mere existence of such a data collection vault deserves the highest level of security.
Thank you for your reply, Roland. I sincerely mean that. So then let's go after the behavior not the system. What you said is, there have been examples of corrupt policemen that were using the system, to stalk former or potential love interests. Isn't that proof that someone is doing something right? Sounds like whomever those policemen were, were held accountable. I have been reading about stalking incidents decades before these systems existed. The medical field and teachers have the same issues with the data base they use. Stalking is stalking and it can be done by anyone, anywhere and anytime. There is a saying, it's not the arrow it's the archer. Thank you.