The Truth About Flock "Safety" Cameras
Recently, the city sought a no-bid contract to expand to 82 Flock cameras throughout the city at the cost of over $1,000,000 without even a policy in place regarding their use or data to support it. However, a group of local leaders came together and were able to successfully advocate for the city council to wait and learn more before taking further action.
Why, might you ask? Well, let's break it down for everyone.
The ACLU has released a comprehensive report on the multiple problems with these types of AI-driven mass surveillance systems, from improper retention and sharing of data to the increased over-policing of marginalized communities. Most departments buy into Flock simply because other departments are buying into Flock, and not because of any actual proven benefit from their technology. Indeed, the research shows that this type of mass surveillance does not, in fact, meaningfully reduce crime or stop crimes in progress. Even Acting Chief Torres reluctantly acknowledged this during a recent City Council meeting on September 18.
Flock's data from our department will go out to all their networks nationwide, not just the *40 million* Californians alleged by Acting Chief Torres, compromising the security of immigrants and those seeking abortion healthcare in our sanctuary city. Why? Because these cameras record everything. We will be retaining people’s trips to their doctors, religious institutions, or political gatherings for over 2 weeks. Meanwhile, faulty data from other law enforcement agencies across the country that Flock retains will bias our own hit lists, causing unwarranted stops on vulnerable groups.
At the meeting in September, Councilmember Ballew argued that "we don't need more rules" around improper use of the Flock system, asserting without evidence that people who abuse the data will do so whether we have regulations in place or not. I find this opinion from a former member of law enforcement confusing and concerning. The purpose of a law is to tell people what behavior is and is not allowed. The purpose of a rule is that we can hold people accountable if they break it. And, according to the data, abuse of these databases remains a shockingly common problem. Even more troubling was Councilmember Ballew's attempt to pretend that mass surveillance of innocent people would have solved, let alone stopped, the murder of Joel Ramirez in 2014. As shown by the history of that particular crime and research on these cameras, we know that they wouldn't have. Gun violence is an epidemic that isn't solved by cameras. And while it's heart-breaking enough for his family to have endured this loss, using Joel Ramirez's death to make political accusations is shameful. If Councilmember Ballew doesn't understand these issues, maybe he should recuse himself from further discussion and voting on this subject.
Also at the meeting in September, Mayor Gonzalez asserted that he is a "data guy" and was "not happy about the level of detail" (meaning lack thereof) provided in the department's presentation on the Flock system. In fact, he is such a data guy and so unhappy that he voted to expand the system without any data and in the absence of the details he desired! This kind of hypocrisy is unsettling, to say the least. But his inability to understand the privacy difference between decentralized private platforms like Facebook or Ring doorbells, and centralized law enforcement systems like those created by Flock is a sign that he is woefully uneducated about this subject. There is no reason for our law enforcement to track when women visit their doctor for abortion healthcare, or unhoused people go to a food bank, or immigrants travel to a law clinic, or students attend a political rally. There are meaningful differences between posting a family photo on Facebook or seeing a neighborhood jogger through a smart doorbell and giving law enforcement access to everyone's comings and goings for weeks or longer with the risk that they may be abusively targeted. And if Mayor Gonzalez cannot comprehend that, then he should recuse himself as well.
SLPD does not have the capacity to act on every hit the department receives in response to Flock cameras and has been unable to enact a consistent policy for which hits are or are not pursued. Indeed, we do not have any policy for Flock's cameras. Acting Chief Torres reluctantly admitted all of this as well. Arbitrary enforcement is not smart or safe policing.
This mass surveillance doesn’t help small businesses or residents who are victimized. Rather, these cameras contribute to a positively Orwellian invasion of privacy for innocent people, increasing fear and mistrust in our community. Even the anecdotal posts by SLPD fail in their copaganda because the very incidents they highlight could have just as easily and even more cheaply been solved with automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that don't grossly invade innocent people's privacy like Flock's cameras do.
Thankfully, people continue to urge the City Council not to blindly accept Flock’s model simply because it advances Flock’s bottom line, or because other jurisdictions have unwisely chosen to do so. If some cameras are needed for security theater, there are better and cheaper ways to do it. Instead of reactionary surveillance tools, we should adopt these three smart policies from civil liberty and nonprofit organizations, as well as engage in a competitive procurement process instead of no-bid contracts.
If we take these critical steps to reject reactionary measures and invest in proactive solutions, we can continue building a safer San Leandro for everyone.
Take note and take care.
The ACLU has released a comprehensive report on the multiple problems with these types of AI-driven mass surveillance systems, from improper retention and sharing of data to the increased over-policing of marginalized communities. Most departments buy into Flock simply because other departments are buying into Flock, and not because of any actual proven benefit from their technology. Indeed, the research shows that this type of mass surveillance does not, in fact, meaningfully reduce crime or stop crimes in progress. Even Acting Chief Torres reluctantly acknowledged this during a recent City Council meeting on September 18.
Flock's data from our department will go out to all their networks nationwide, not just the *40 million* Californians alleged by Acting Chief Torres, compromising the security of immigrants and those seeking abortion healthcare in our sanctuary city. Why? Because these cameras record everything. We will be retaining people’s trips to their doctors, religious institutions, or political gatherings for over 2 weeks. Meanwhile, faulty data from other law enforcement agencies across the country that Flock retains will bias our own hit lists, causing unwarranted stops on vulnerable groups.
At the meeting in September, Councilmember Ballew argued that "we don't need more rules" around improper use of the Flock system, asserting without evidence that people who abuse the data will do so whether we have regulations in place or not. I find this opinion from a former member of law enforcement confusing and concerning. The purpose of a law is to tell people what behavior is and is not allowed. The purpose of a rule is that we can hold people accountable if they break it. And, according to the data, abuse of these databases remains a shockingly common problem. Even more troubling was Councilmember Ballew's attempt to pretend that mass surveillance of innocent people would have solved, let alone stopped, the murder of Joel Ramirez in 2014. As shown by the history of that particular crime and research on these cameras, we know that they wouldn't have. Gun violence is an epidemic that isn't solved by cameras. And while it's heart-breaking enough for his family to have endured this loss, using Joel Ramirez's death to make political accusations is shameful. If Councilmember Ballew doesn't understand these issues, maybe he should recuse himself from further discussion and voting on this subject.
Also at the meeting in September, Mayor Gonzalez asserted that he is a "data guy" and was "not happy about the level of detail" (meaning lack thereof) provided in the department's presentation on the Flock system. In fact, he is such a data guy and so unhappy that he voted to expand the system without any data and in the absence of the details he desired! This kind of hypocrisy is unsettling, to say the least. But his inability to understand the privacy difference between decentralized private platforms like Facebook or Ring doorbells, and centralized law enforcement systems like those created by Flock is a sign that he is woefully uneducated about this subject. There is no reason for our law enforcement to track when women visit their doctor for abortion healthcare, or unhoused people go to a food bank, or immigrants travel to a law clinic, or students attend a political rally. There are meaningful differences between posting a family photo on Facebook or seeing a neighborhood jogger through a smart doorbell and giving law enforcement access to everyone's comings and goings for weeks or longer with the risk that they may be abusively targeted. And if Mayor Gonzalez cannot comprehend that, then he should recuse himself as well.
SLPD does not have the capacity to act on every hit the department receives in response to Flock cameras and has been unable to enact a consistent policy for which hits are or are not pursued. Indeed, we do not have any policy for Flock's cameras. Acting Chief Torres reluctantly admitted all of this as well. Arbitrary enforcement is not smart or safe policing.
This mass surveillance doesn’t help small businesses or residents who are victimized. Rather, these cameras contribute to a positively Orwellian invasion of privacy for innocent people, increasing fear and mistrust in our community. Even the anecdotal posts by SLPD fail in their copaganda because the very incidents they highlight could have just as easily and even more cheaply been solved with automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that don't grossly invade innocent people's privacy like Flock's cameras do.
Thankfully, people continue to urge the City Council not to blindly accept Flock’s model simply because it advances Flock’s bottom line, or because other jurisdictions have unwisely chosen to do so. If some cameras are needed for security theater, there are better and cheaper ways to do it. Instead of reactionary surveillance tools, we should adopt these three smart policies from civil liberty and nonprofit organizations, as well as engage in a competitive procurement process instead of no-bid contracts.
If we take these critical steps to reject reactionary measures and invest in proactive solutions, we can continue building a safer San Leandro for everyone.
Take note and take care.
The City Council in deferring approval of additional Flock cameras last month requested that the Community Police Review Board review the police policy on use of ALRP cameras. The Board will be doing so at its Wed., Oct.18 meeting at 6 pm at the Surlene Grant Community Rm. Public comment welcome - and if you can’t attend, consider submitting your comments through the eComments link on the City’s Meeting Central website or by emailing the Bd. directly at CPRB@sanleandro.org.
ReplyDelete