Trending
The more we hear about Flock cameras the less we like them.
These cameras, positioned along roadways across the state and country, read license plate numbers in passing vehicles, reporting that and other information in real time to centralized data bases that law enforcement and others can access and share.
Some police -- certainly not all -- neighborhood associations and private property owners argue the cameras, often powered by an attached solar cell, help find the bad guys and that they are, in essence, no different than an officer sitting on the side of the road keeping an eye on things.
Opponents counter that an officer along the side of the road is observing while Flock cameras engage in surveillance. That’s where, they say, the line gets crossed. We agree.
Firstly, there are a number of different companies that manufacture these devices. Flock Safety of Atlanta, Georgia, seems to be the most popular and is, perhaps, the largest but there are others. The cameras are also called automated license plate recognition devices but unlike the simple, picture taking apparatuses that have been around since the 1960s and 70s, these new devices pour all kinds of data into centralized collection platforms where whomever can, without a warrant, access it.
Needless to say, opportunities for misuse are rife.
According to The Washington Post, dozens of law enforcement officers nationwide have been accused, fired, or arrested for abusing the database to illegally track personal acquaintances, ex-wives and romantic partners. CBS Mornings report glitches, database errors, or misidentifications have led to innocent drivers being pulled over by police at gunpoint. Privacy advocates cited by the University of North Carolina maintain that logging and storing location histories of innocent citizens without probable cause violates reasonable expectations of privacy.
These grim facts seem to be having an affect. According to National Public Radio, at least 100 cities and local agencies have deactivated or canceled contracts with Flock amid community pressure and local bans. Recently, the top police officer in the city of Marquette noted there is “no taste” in town for the cameras, although law enforcement in other Upper Peninsula locations have and continue to use them.
We could go on and on but let’s end on this: there is a difference between observance and surveillance. There just is. Let’s not, as comedian George Carlin once opined, give up more of our liberty, privacy and freedom to obtain what appears to be a sliver of security.
If this continues, the government and police will have eyes on everyone and everything, all the time, not something, we believe, the framers of our Constitution had in mind.