Don’t Block FLOCK
Editor;
I was struck by recent comments expressing opposition to FLOCK cameras. Having grown up in so-called “safe” communities all my sheltered life, I understand how easy it is to reach adulthood assuming that level of security is simply the natural state of things. But public safety does not perpetuate itself – it requires public investment, effective policing and appropriate tools.
There are legitimate concerns about privacy and misuse when it comes to the cameras and policing, and those concerns deserve safeguards. The recent case of a San Jose police officer who accessed Flock data and provided information to a relative involved in a domestic violence case is a disturbing example. But the officer was terminated, and San Jose subsequently tightened access to sensitive data while strengthening auditing procedures.
One incident demonstrates why strong access controls, auditing, transparency and meaningful consequences for misuse are essential. It does not demonstrate that the technology itself should be fully abandoned.
Sincerely,
Stephen Rivera/Walnut Creek
Previous article
Next article
You touched on some good points. I’m generally in support, but on the fence still with these cameras.
Recently I was disappointed to discover the cameras could not be accessed to capture footage of a reckless driver who almost hit me and several others along a major road, and in view of a camera.
We called 911, provided the full plate #, vehicle/driver description, and last seen location but PD was unable to locate.
I have no doubt the police did their best. I appreciate everyone involved that helped, including the officer that explained that law enforcement must see the infraction with their own eyes.
I think that law needs another look. If I agree to surveillance all over my city in the name of public safety, then the cameras and tools should be utilized like another set of eyes in cases like mine. Someone got away with something incredibly dangerous and is likely to drive that way again.
I’m in favor of FLOCK cameras. I have no expectation of privacy in public because there is no such thing. Sure, there’s occasional abuse, but we don’t live in a perfect world.
I am also in favor of license plate reading cameras for police use, but It’s a bit of a bumper sticker argument that you make. Your argument poses as common sense, but it doesn’t stand up when one contemplates potential abuses by an authoritarian state. Existing technology can facilitate serious abuses. These must be reined in if we are to maintain any notion of real privacy even in “private” spaces.
๐ baa, baa
No wonder police like it. It’s mass surveillance. And whenever I think it may be a good thing I remember that the CEO of FLOCK demanded that the public stop photographing and filming his employees citing — GET THIS — employee privacy. The hypocrisy needle went off the chart on that one.
New breach in Marin County with thousands of data requests from outside agencies. Tell me again why we had to have these cameras? For fighting crime or for keeping tabs on and CONTROLLING people???
I’d write a letter about this but I have to give all my financial info to Alexa right now….
Is she sweet on you, too? She is soooo helpful.
For me, the technology isn’t the issue – it’s how we make sure it isnโt abused.
Put policies in place if they’re not already (and from what I’m reading lately, they’re not). 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. TERMINATE and PROSECUTE officers/agencies who abuse the technology.
I have a feeling we’ve opened the lid to Pandora’s box….
I’d like to see more oversight. Maybe a periodic review by a civilian board.
Good letter but I think we’ve created one problem by trying to solve another.
If there’s a way to pervert and twist a technology to benefit someone or a group of people humans will find a way to do it.
sorry but I don’t trust it
An impressive piece of technology that when used well can do good things. Unfortunately it has been hijacked and misused by bad actors with badges and tied to a more invasive, more widespread form of pattern surveillance that is chilling and should give Americans pause. We’ve been reassured time and again that limits are in place and abuse of Flock data can’t happen — and then it does.
I think they’re creepy. I hate the feeling that I’m being tracked.
As I wrote earlier, the Flock CEO has been making the rounds explaining the safeguards (not all of which were present from the start!). Flock requires automatic detection of abuse, such as stalking by users of the system. Take a few minutes to watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/r9QIYJ-xh68
Some safeguards are tunable by the local police, such as the number of days images are retained. We need to check how our police are tuning these features.
Giving local law enforcement the tools to keep a community safe > the 1% of abuse or privacy intrusions. That requires controls, not a ban.
Better oversight and administrative review.