Perfect World
← Transcript library

Fort Collins and Boulder may stop using Flock surveillance cameras. Here’s why they’re controvers...

KUNC61 viewsMar 19, 20268:441,483 words
▶ Watch on YouTube⬇ Download transcript (.txt)

Summary

A neutral AI summary of this video is queued and will appear here.

Full transcript

from KUNC and the NPR network. This is in the noco. I'm Aaron Oul. Drive through some communities in Colorado and your movements may be monitored by a network of cameras that track your license plate. A company called Flock operates dozens of these cameras in Boulder, Denver, and Fort Collins. And they've quietly photographed millions of cars over the last year. And right now, these cities are grappling with the question of whether these cameras help fight crime or are an abuse of privacy and civil liberties. Denver leaders announced in February they would not renew the city's contract with Flock. Officials in Boulder and Fort Collins are also considering dropping their use of flock cameras after public opposition. To better understand the debate over these cameras, we reached out to Steven Kenir. He's an assistant professor of criminology at Christopher Newport University in Virginia. He studies the use of flot cameras across the US and how that data has been used or misused by law enforcement, as well as some of the philosophical objections to the cameras. I think that these cameras in particular really violate a fundamental assumption that we have. You know, if we're doing what we're supposed to do, if we're, you know, if we're not breaking the law, if we're not providing probable calls, the government and police are supposed to leave us alone, like we are supposed to have a certain expectation of privacy. But in reality, the vast majority of data being captured by these cameras are people just living their everyday law-abiding life. Flock cameras are usually mounted on poles or you might see them on walls close to streets. The cameras scan license plates and sometimes bumper stickers. Stephen, briefly, what happens after the flat camera photographs your license plate? So, we call this a vehicle fingerprint. And so, it can recognize the make and model of your car, bumper stickers, if you have like certain additions on your car, all of that. An image is captured is then sent to a police database and usually with that there is a timestamp and a location of where that photo was taken and the time. Uh but from there they can integrate that picture with other surveillance data they have coming from things like traffic cameras, speed cameras, CCTV and it is a pretty expansive database of both real-time pictures being captured as well as historical tracking data. Now, privacy and civil liberties advocates have major concerns about how this data is used. What are a couple of examples of ways that you've seen data misused after a flot camera photographs a car? Yeah, so it's a couple different categories and probably the most concerning of which has been the way it's been abused uh particularly by law enforcement. For example, we've seen across the country officers using I'm going to refer to them as ALPRs a lot. That's automatic license plate reader cameras. Okay. Um and flock safety is the predominant form of ALPR cameras. And so um we've seen officers across the country use ALPR data to stalk exes exartners. Um we've seen them stalk their exartner's new partner. Um, we also had an incident where in Texas, um, there was a search for a woman they thought was seeking an abortion out of state and they actually were using the ALPR data to try to track where she went and she tried to do that. Um, so there's those abuses by law enforcement. We've also seen quite a few technical issues as well and misreads. Uh, for example, there was a family that was held at gunpoint because of a misread of an ALR camera that thought the vehicle was stolen. in some of these cases got pretty aggressive and violent. So, Denver leaders decided late last year they would stop using flock cameras after learning ICE officers had accessed information from a database ma maintained by flock safety which builds the cameras. This is despite Flock's assurance that the company doesn't share that data. How is ICE able to get that information? So the most common way they're getting that information is through what we call a side door. And they're essentially just finding a friendly police officer that's willing to give them access to the database. So if you're a law enforcement department that you has a contract with Flock, you can opt into their regional and national sharing database. And so in those cases, if you opt in, the pictures that are taken by your ALPR cameras are shared across the country um and is now accessible to law enforcement agencies across the country. in some incidents which we also saw in Virginia. This past summer we saw ICE access five different localities flock databases in Virginia and that was through the side doors where they there was somebody willing to give them access to the database and once they had access to one portal of entry they now had access to this expansive national database. This is frustrating on a number of levels. One like you said um we have heard from flock that this is not going on. and there is not sharing with the federal government even though we continue to see that it's happening and in many of these cases um when you ask law enforcement if they knew this was going on sometimes you'll see law enforcement leaders say no they did not know it that they would not have given them access if they did know what was going on and there's also this question of what if they just came to a local department says hey you know we are a federal law enforcement agency federal law trumps state laws and local laws so can we access your database Um, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that that would be the case, that they would also have a legal avenue, which I think is quite concerning. Stephen, law enforcement and city leaders often say flock cameras help reduce crime. What does the research show about the camera's ability to prevent crime? There is no peer-reviewed empirical study that can make that argument. And that's because of a lot of reasons. One, crime is complicated and why crime happens is complicated. Two, like there has been a reduction in crime rates almost across the board across the country. Not everywhere, but but most localities are seeing it. Those are in those counties that have flock cameras and the counties that do not have flot cameras. Crime is going down everywhere. But also, these cameras, if they're being used by law enforcement, it is to find somebody after the fact to you be able to track somebody down. But when it comes to crime prevention, that does not connect at all with what we know from historical research on why crime happens, especially violent crime. If we want to prevent violent crime, it's going to have to involve things like reducing inequality, um, youth focused programs, violence interruptors, those kind of actual preventive mechanisms. Well, I mean, you mentioned flop cameras can help recover stolen vehicles and solve other serious crimes. And I think supporters might say that's pretty important. Um, how should residents weigh that potential benefit against these concerns that you've mentioned? I would make the argument that the concerns far outweigh the benefits. Like when we see these kinds of abuses that happen, you know, when we see a police officer and even police chief using it to stalk exartners and their new partners, that to me is pretty terrifying. The fact that we know that ICE and other federal agencies were accessing this data even when we were being told that they were not able to do that I think is extremely concerning. Um also we've seen in a number of localities where during the no kings protest ALPR data was accessed as a way to try to track protesters who came to the protest where did they go after and I think that is a clear suppression of free speech. All of those are actual abuses that we've already seen come to light and come to fruition and they continue to happen. And so I would argue that mass surveillance in general, but particularly this form of mass surveillance makes us far less safe than more safe. Steven Kenir is assistant professor of criminology at Christopher Newport University in Virginia, where he's also the director of the Center for Crime, Equity, and Justice Research and Policy. You can read more of his research into flock cameras and the debate over the future of the cameras in Boulder, Denver, and Fort Collins. We'll have links in our show notes and at kunc.org. That's it today for in the noco. I'm Aaron Oul. Thanks so much for listening.