Full transcript
Hello folks, I'm boots on the ground
journalist Tommy G and this is a [music]
flock camera and you may have noticed
cameras like this popping up around your
city.
Tommy G went looking for America's mass
surveillance problem and honestly he
found one.
Former Milwaukee police officer plead
guilty to using [music] the flock camera
system. Police say he used it to track a
romantic partner and friend.
Police officers have been caught using
flock cameras to track women they were
involved with. Innocent people have
reportedly ended up staring down police
officers because of bad information. And
these cameras are appearing in
communities all across America. Hi, I'm
Ben Jordan, a researcher and journalist.
As of today, Flock Safety has installed
over 100,000 cameras all over America.
So, chances are that Flock is in your
city, even if you don't know it.
But while I watched Tommy's
investigation, I realized something. He
may have been looking at [music] the
wrong thing.
That's right. Today we're going to spy
on flock employees to see how they like
being under surveillance. [music]
He was looking at maybe this camera,
that camera. That's not what concerns me
the most about this. What does? Just
imagine this. I type in your license
plate into a computer and instead of
seeing [music] one picture of your car,
I start connecting dots. You left home.
You went to work. You stopped at the
doctor's office. You went to church.
[music] You visited somebody across
town. Maybe you went somewhere you don't
want anybody to know about. Now imagine
the person searching that [music]
information isn't investigating you for
a crime. Maybe he's curious. Maybe he's
jealous. [music] Maybe he knows your
wife. Maybe he's your ex-boyfriend. And
here's where [music] Tommy's
investigation gets really interesting
because officers have already been
caught abusing [music] systems like
this. To cover how Flock cameras have
the potential to be abused, I have to
look no further than my city of
Milwaukee, [music] where police officer
Joseal obsessively used Flock 180 times
over a two-month span [music] to stalk
his ex-girlfriend. And in Mckenry
County, Illinois, where I grew up, the
same story played out where a police
chief [music] used Flock to creep on
three separate exes and was later
charged with multiple felonies. And
there are countless stories like this.
For example, earlier this year in
Florida, a sheriff who was working a
side security job for a film set started
hitting on an actress and repeatedly
approached her even after she told him
that she had a boyfriend. Other extras
on the set noticed this and intervened.
[music] So, he used the police database
to find her vehicle's information and
added it to the hot list so he would be
notified every single time that she
passed [music] a flock camera. He then
followed her for miles and then pulled
her over, telling her that he had hoped
her boyfriend was with her so he could
give him a hard time. He then allegedly
used the police department's
investigative tools to find her on
Instagram [music] and continue stalking
her there. But this isn't the biggest
part of the story. The biggest question
is why nobody stopped them sooner. And
once you [music] understand that, the
entire flock debate changes. Because
this isn't really a story about cameras.
It's a story about power. Who gets it?
Who watches the people using it? And
what happens when the computer's wrong?
This is the Hill of Justice.
So, welcome back to the Hill of Justice.
I'm Jerome Hill, former investigator,
and with me is retired Sheriff Victor
Hill. And what we're going to do is
investigate the investigation. So,
brother, you have a little bit of
experience with the flock system because
it was instituted back in 2017
and it's full implementation with 5,000
of them um flooded Atlanta and so on and
so forth. Um what were some of your
impressions right off the bat and in
particular? Um what was your experience
with it?
[snorts]
Well, first of all, it's an amazing
piece of equipment and it it it can do a
lot for law enforcement. You know,
imagine you get a description of a car
or a tag. Um, but you know, you got to
look out for it, but the only thing you
can depend on is if officers that have
that lookout spot the vehicle or perhaps
you're able to get it out to the public
and they say they spot it. But imagine
you got re wellpositioned cameras so you
can basically track the direction that
this car is going in and then get a
picture of it in time. So if you're
talking about tracking a stolen car,
looking for a child that's been
kidnapped or something like that,
amazing technology, but everything is a
two-edged sword. You know, everything
has has a yin and yang to it for lack of
a better term. You know, you know, a
knife can be used to uh cut meat and
prepare a meal. It also can be used to
stab a person to death. You know what
I'm saying?
And so, you got this amazing tool that
when it's used for what it's intended
to, just like a knife or just like a
firearm, it can protect, it can provide
food. And just like this vlog camera can
provide protection,
but if it's used wrong, it becomes a
very, very dangerous situation. You know
what's interesting? You know, we've had
about five or six officers locked up in
the last 30 days in Georgia for misusing
the fly camera. So, it's starting to
gain attention and um and
interesting. We'll get to my county in a
second because that that's a whole
different story of what's coming up
there that you're gonna find
interesting. But
what's so interesting about these
officers and how they're using it is,
okay, it's already against the law to do
what we refer to as a chick check. Chick
check.
Meaning officers used to see a pretty
girl run a tag. That way they know where
she lives. [clears throat]
And they would literally go by the
house, hey, I just wanted to meet you or
whatever like that. Of course, that got
ridiculous. There was complaints and of
course um laws were created that that
tag can only be ran for investigative
purposes only and to use it for anything
else is illegal. So officers are trained
that when they go through the academy
when they come on that that information
is to be accessed only for investigative
purposes. There should be a case number.
There's a reason I'm running that tag.
It's not because I want to see if
someone's married or not or I want to
see where they live. So,
common sense should dictate that if you
can't run a tag to see who it belongs
to, what makes you think you can put
your girlfriend, your wife, or whoever
it is you're trying to stalk, cuz that's
exactly what it is. Stalking
so you can see their their their
whereabouts. Now, think how scary that
is. Okay, first of all, stalking is an
issue anyway, but now you're being
stalked by a law enforcement official,
someone who has access to information
that the only people should have access
to that information is people who are
trusted with integrity to use that
information for good, not for evil. But
now you got a jealous boyfriend. And
let's and let's not just say it that
way. I mean, they're jealous females. I
read an incident about a a female that
was tracking her husband using
[clears throat] flock. He's the officer.
But imagine you got somebody and they're
watching everywhere you go.
Okay.
Mhm.
And [clears throat] and then they're law
enforcement. They carry a badge and a
gun. That's taking stalking to a whole
another level.
Sure. Sure. And first, Tommy got
something very right. And before anybody
says I'm defending flock safety, I'm
not. And before anyone says I'm
attacking Tommy G, I'm not doing that
either. Tommy raised a legitimate issue.
He showed examples of law enforcement
officers allegedly or criminally using
the investigative technology for per for
purposes.
One officer reportedly searched for
information connected to a former
romantic partner over and over again.
Something that you just mentioned.
Another disturbing example involved
allegations that an officer used law
enforcement resources to monitor a woman
he had became interested in.
No good. That's no no good. So that
should bother you and it should bother
the audience out there. I know it
bothered me and I spent years in law
enforcement and investigations and the
one thing you learn very quickly is
this. Access is power. Police databases
contain information ordinary citizens
cannot simply have
and but this is where we're at. And so
there there has to be some rules. But
Tommy, what he did was he makes a jump
that I wouldn't have made as an
investigator. He essentially asks, "Look
at what this technology allows people to
do." My question is a little bit
different. Who was supposed to catch
them doing it? That's the question. Hold
on to that question because we're going
to come back to that a little bit later
in the show. But first, there's another
part of Tommy's video that sounds even
more frightening if you look at it until
you separate the two things that aren't
quite the same. And this is where we're
at right now. A camera seeing you isn't
the same as someone following you. And I
know you were talking about stalking,
but it's an it's a tool that's
necessary. I mean, wouldn't wouldn't you
say something like that?
Yes. I mean, it's an important part of
investigations. What interests me about
Flock and where I'd like to see it
ultimately go, and that's what they're
working on now, is when you can chase a
car with Flock. [clears throat]
So, imagine you're no longer chasing a
car with a police car and putting them
off the road and putting everybody's
life in danger.
You can track a car with Flock. You have
enough cameras where there's no way they
can go where you're not tracking where
they're going. And they're working on
connecting that to drone technology. So
imagine you got drone with the with the
tracking information. That drone is able
to lock in on that vehicle. So that's
safe for everybody. So now you don't
have a police car and another car going,
you know, a two tongue two two tongue
bullets going through through the crowd.
But it's going to make it impossible for
this criminal to get away cuz once they
lock in, we're going to know where
they're at. So when you look at that,
the potential and the greatness for this
to help society is great. But when you
got these rogue individuals that have
these uh issues
because you know if it's that serious
that you got to know where this person
is and what they're doing
um you're a stalker.
Right. Right.
You're no different than the people that
that that that that we get reports on
that's driving past their wife's house
or or putting tracking devices in their
car. What's the difference?
Right. Right. I think that when we take
a look at this, some critics will go
ahead and talk like photographing a
license plate in public automatically
equals an unconstitutional search. And I
think that's too simplistic in in in
nature. But I've also heard that law
enforcement people essentially say
you're outside, you have no privacy, you
know, or you don't have no expectation
of privacy.
And we can see whatever we want. And I
think that's too simple too in a sense
because
example you're in your home. You're
you're you're in your backyard. You
know, it's you're supposed to have some
type of cover. You're walking around
naked and then guess what? Somebody is
on a scaffold that you would wouldn't
think that they would be up there. They
see you. They call and then you got
another set of issues or flock sees you
because they're high up in the ground.
Um, so I I I could see, you know, some
unconstitutional I could see some
constitutional u fights coming and we
had some even just last month. I'll go
ahead and talk about later. So we we
have those issues,
but you know, it's a simple fix. The way
you fix this problem is the same thing
you do for this is what you did.
Remember, it wasn't just uh people
checking tags. It was criminal history.
Remember, officer can run anybody's
criminal history. So, you got a friend
and um she's like, "Hey, I'm dating this
guy. Can you run his background so I can
know what's going on?" And that was
going on.
And then so then she confronts a guy
she's dating. So, well, I heard you were
you were arrested. How do you know that?
Well, I got a friend. He's a cop or
whatever. Man had to put a stop to that.
So, now this is how they did it. Not
only is it illegal
to run a person, but here's how you
control it.
When you run a person's background, you
have to give the reason for it and a
case number. That way you can look up
the case number and see the
documentation and see this is why. So if
you have a case number and you know that
you're investigating a robbery at this
location and you know these particular
people are suspects, then it proves this
is why you ran these people names
because you had a robbery and in the
course of the investigation,
these people fit the description, you
ran their criminal background. So
everything is documented. So, anytime
you put a tag in the flock, it should be
going with a case number because, hey,
we just a case number that says a car
was just stolen or there was just a
kidnapping or whatever. And that
information is going in as you putting
it in. So that way when a person goes
back and audit, this tag was put in for
this reason. It can't be something
that's just in your phone. And um you
know like what we got going on in
Clayton County now where because you can
because you're the elected sheriff, you
want it in your phone so you can check
whoever you want whenever you want to.
That shouldn't be the case. Every time
you put a tag in there, you should be
able to prove why you put that tag in
there.
Yeah.
And that solves a problem right there.
Yeah. Let's And let's talk about that
cuz I'm going to let's just imagine this
happening to you. I'm going to give you
a scenario. Okay.
Mhm. You're driving home and you haven't
committed a crime. Suddenly, you got
police lights behind you. Two officers
get right out and another unit arrives.
Maybe somebody orders you out of the
car. Maybe guns come out and you're
thinking, "What the heck did I do?" You
know, and you're trying to figure out
what the answer is. A computer said your
vehicle was a match. And Tommy showed
examples involving these innocent people
being confronted and problematic with
this problematic automated system that
they got going on. And those cases
absolutely deserve scrutiny. But as as
I'm thinking about it as an
investigator, I'm not just stopping
right there because there here's the
missing part between the computer alert
and a person in handcuffs. And it is
what happened between that time. Who
checked a little bit? what you were
talking about. That's the part that I
want to find out because honestly,
computers don't put handcuffs on people.
Police officers do. Somebody had to
check that. Where's the supervision on
that? And that's a little bit what
you're trying to get at, too. And what
happens next when you find out that
oops, you made a mistake.
Well, let me tell you, there's going
that's the crazy part about police work.
You know, when a when a secretary makes
a mistake, she can use white out or she
can hit backspace or whatever. But we're
in a different realm. When we make a
mistake, it's very, very different. And
there's going to be human error. I was
stopped by cops with a felony stop
because the tag on my car came back that
I was wanted for attempted murder.
So, imagine I'm now I'm a police officer
when this happened. This is years ago. I
was a young rookie and I'm driving down
Candler Road and and a cop car gets
behind me. Next thing you looked there's
a felony stop. So, I'm complying and
fortunately one of the cops came up,
recognized the car, recognized me and
said, "Hey, wait a second. This guy,
this guy's a cop." And the rest were
like, "Are you sure?" And he said,
"Yeah." So, I remember he said, "Hey,
get out the car, show him your ID." So,
the other cop was complex and he was
like, "Hey, um, is your full name Victor
Hill?" "Yes." He said, "Is your date of
birth this?" Yes. Do you live at this
address? He said, "Yes." He said, "Hold
on." He went back and he came back and
he said, "Listen, I don't know how to
tell you this, but I got a warrant for
you for um aggravated assault, which is
the equivalent attempted murder in
Georgia." And um he said, "Have you been
involved in any use of force incidents?"
And I said, "Yes, but it was clear, so
there's no way they would have taken a
warrant from me, and if they did, I'm
sure they would have told me or
whatever." And he said, "Look, I don't
know You know, listen, I'm not trying to
be rude, but right now I got to take
your gun and I'm not going to handcuff
you, but you got to sit in the back of
the car until we can figure out what's
going on.
So, they're perplexed. I'm perplexed.
Now, I'm sitting in the back of a police
car,
and I'm like, "Where and how did I get a
warrant for me for aggravated assault?"
Now, this is in the ' 90s,
right?
So, they got a computer in the car. So,
I reach over and look at the computer
and I'm reading it and sure enough, all
my information is there. And then I saw
something. I realized what happened.
When I looked at the case number,
there wasn't a case number. It said
test. Back then, when they used to train
officers for uh GCIC, they would have us
enter ourselves into the computer. Then
they would have us take a command and
take ourselves off the computer.
Obviously, I didn't hit the right
command. So, I was wanted all over the
United States for attempted murder. M
when they went back and did a audit,
there were like five other officers at
my agency that was also wanted for
attempted murder. So, they had to change
that policy. Okay, we're not going to
train anybody by actually having them
input their name into the system and
take it out. And there's a lot to be
learned from that because imagine if
you're a cop, you got people telling you
there's a warrant for you. And that's
why I always tell people, don't argue
with cops. Don't fight cops. Don't run
from cops because it doesn't make any
sense. I could have said that I'm not
getting in the back of the car. You're
not getting my gun. I don't know what
you're talking about.
You know, hands off me. It's like, well,
hey, look, let's figure it out. Calm,
cool. You know, what what purpose would
it serve if I started fighting the cops
because, hey, y'all know I'm not wanted
or that type of mentality.
Somebody could have got hurt. What would
have solved? It would have made a bad
situation worse,
right? And I love that story because,
you know, you're talking about a
principle that I learned long ago, and
that was technology should assist in an
investigation. And you know, thankfully
those two officers had a cool uh heads
on their shoulders and they went about
investigating
and they didn't use the substitute of
the technology to say this was a you
know a done deal you know and obviously
you understanding what happened um you
know went a long way in that um in that
case and that investigation. So that
that says a lot. But it only takes one
character, you know, of typing something
and boom, you're in the jackpot.
And so, you know, that's why, you know,
you still got to be an investigator. You
still got to go ahead and take a look at
things. I remember, you know, in my
agency where the same person had the
same name and and date of birth and so
on so forth, but the height difference
was so enormous. The weight difference
was so enormous.
The officer took him in anyway and I was
like I was so uncomfortable with
[snorts] it. I was just like that's not
that can't be the guy. And sure enough
when he went down there to booking
wasn't the guy you know that was his
arrest. You know that ain't me. So, I
don't know if anyone's ever got uh sued
on that, but this is problematic where
you can take a look and you need to
verify and officers need to verify
in and these type of uh situations and
and because you don't want this to
escalate to something, you know, tragic
and Exactly. And if you're the victim of
that, you got to remain calm and cool.
Again, no one has ever shown where
arguing with the police, fighting the
police, or running from the police was
the best course of action. I know in the
end, well, I was scared. Well, I was
right or whatever. There's going to be a
lot of circumstances where you're right.
But it's kind of like our dad used to
say um about that tombstone that says,
"Here lies a man that had the right
away."
You know what I'm saying? You a tractor
trailer is coming. You got the rightway.
Well, I got the rightway. I'm going to
pull in front of it anyway. Okay. Well,
the car is crushed. You're dead. What
difference does it make?
So, these things are going to happen as
real important that you remain calm and
cool until it's over with. I've never
seen a situation where arguing with
cops, running from cops, or fighting
cops is the best option.
And we've got to uh you know, I would
say teach our kids. We need to teach our
adults that cuz you see it every day
where people think uh uh you know, let's
argue, let's do whatever. There a lot of
camera technology out there.
They're filming everything if they got
camcorders. You can film everything and
you can get your day in court or your
day with internal affairs, but arguing,
fighting, and running from the cops is
not is never a viable option.
Right. And and we know that people
misuse the criminal history databases.
They misuse the driver's license
database. They misuse even the
confidential governmental information.
What the real question needs to be is
how long they can get away with it.
Because if you imagine this, an officer
searches one plate connected to a
robber. That's normal, right? Then
another connected to a stolen vehicle.
That's normal. Then another to a missing
person. Also normal. Now imagine that
same officer searches one woman's
vehicle again and again and again.
So I mean 50 times, 100 times. I I mean
at what point does somebody ask why is
this officer obsessed with the just one
vehicle and and it's not part of any
type of drug interdiction or something
like that? Um,
you know, there's got to be some some
parameters that, you know, flock safety
has to acknowledge personally um to say,
"Hey, guess what? There's still some
glitches." And a lot of it is human
error and human misuse.
Absolutely. And I think law enforcement
leaders are going to have to assign
people to do monthly audits,
right, to catch that type of stuff. you
know, it's kind of like um at the jail
uh if you run a jail, one thing you can
do in order to to catch things is, you
know, you require all your employees to
give their home and cell phone numbers
that every so often you run those
numbers through the phone system to see
if an inmate [clears throat] is actually
calling one of those numbers and if
they're actually having conversations
with employees cuz they should not be.
Mhm. Now,
of course, you're going to find people
trying to get throwaway phones or
whatever, but all those phone calls are
recorded anyway. So, it's very important
to audit those phone calls and listen to
see exactly what's going on. Um, to do
your internal affairs audit, for lack of
a better term. And with flock, that's
going to have to be mandatory because
that's very scary to think that you are
involved with someone that can track
everywhere you go every day and
something that they don't have a legal
right to do,
right?
But but everything is a is a is a rises
and fall and it's a reflection of
leadership and where the leadership is
strong and where they have checks and
balances and they're consistent with
with uh discipline then you don't see
stuff like that. Take for instance in
Georgia, let me give you a good example.
So at least five officers have been
locked up in the last 30 or 40 days for
misusing flop. Um Richmond County, uh
I believe it's Canton, Georgia. Forgive
me if I'm wrong with that one. And um
some other jurisdictions, but right in
my county in Clayton County, there's an
officer who's on record for using flock
checking the tag of his girlfriend 100
times. He has not been prosecuted. He
has nothing has happened to him. And
there's only one logical reason, and
that's because the sheriff probably
can't prosecute him because we got good
reason to believe that the sheriff does
the same thing. He actually has flock on
his phone.
So, no doubt if there's an audit, you're
going to see the sheriff check in for
females tags as well, too. There's no
doubt in my mind. And I've had some
interesting conversations with people
who feel they may have been a victim of
that and wondering what can they do.
And um you know, and and and let's
discuss that real quick. If you believe
that you're a victim of being uh
stalked by flock, for lack of a better
term,
yeah,
you know, you know, there's two things
you can do. Um, well, number one, with
that agency, you should be able to file
a report with internal affairs.
But in a situation like this, what if
it's the actual sheriff, the head of the
agency that's using Flock? Well, that
gets very, very interesting, too. Now,
Georgia is a unique circumstance because
uh unfortunately citizens can't just go
to the GBI. When the GBI was created, um
some strange things were put in the law
that only a chief of police, a chief
judge or the sheriff can request a GBI
to come and investigate. So basically,
you would so if you got a situation
where it's a sheriff, you would have to
actually go to a city police or county
police if you have one
um and file a report. Hopefully that's
within the jurisdiction, which most of
the time it will be, especially if it's
a county police, and see if you could
get them to get their chief to re to ask
the GBI to come in and make some type of
report. So, so that's a very unique
situation we're dealing with in Clayton
County because you got one guy checking
a hundred times, but the leader refuses
to have him prosecuted because it can
lead back to him. But what when it's a
leader, I mean, who do you complain to
when the sheriff is stalking you on
flock? He's an elected official,
right? Well, it's a civil rights
violation.
Absolutely.
And that can be federal.
Well, that's good to know because that's
what I was going to say next. If there's
some type of federal statute or whatever
like that, then then you no doubt have
to contact the uh the feds
to come in cuz like I said, there's this
little quirk in the law, at least in
Georgia. I don't know if every state is
like that. The different states have,
you know, South Carolina has sled,
Tennessee has a TBI. I don't know if
they have that that quirk in a law like
we have in Georgia where only the chief,
the sheriff or the uh the chief superior
court judge can call them in and ask
them to come and investigate. But if
they do, you're absolutely right. That
would be the next step.
Right. Right. Right. And then, uh, just
piggybacking off of you, uh, anyone
there out there in Hell Nation, if you
feel the same way, um, you know, please
feel free and even comment and put it on
in the comments below. So, uh, we like
to hear from you and certainly maybe
your interactions or what you dealt with
law enforcement or what do you feel
about, uh, the situation. I do feel like
the flock safety system um or flock
safety um has an apparatus and that
apparatus although it's pointing at you
know the citizens I also feel like that
is the same apparatus that could be used
internally for accountability. It's an
accountability tool and it could be
pushed right back on that company and
that's what it should be doing. I know
that this is going to sound weird and I
do believe that there's some
uncomfortability
with police departments and they push
back a little bit because what you just
described because people are abusing the
system and they don't want that type of
civil exposure, if you will, and thus
they would rather look away or try to
sweep it under the rug and or deal with
it internally than have that exposed to
the public,
right? You know, uh, in the state of
Georgia,
the state, the GBI does GCI audits. You
know, there's NCI, GCI. GCI is a Georgia
Crime Information, um, center, and they
do these audits, and they come and audit
agencies to see how GCI sees, make sure
it's being used uh, properly. And I
believe that there needs to be
legislation so that they can also audit
uh the flock system because technically
the flock system has to connect to GCIC,
NCIC in a way anyway in order to to have
information.
So that's going to have to I think there
should be and and I I don't even know if
an annual audit is enough. You know,
you're talking extra manpower, but it's
worth it. It probably needs to be uh
bianual or maybe even quarterly to be
safe.
I [clears throat] would push towards a
quarterly uh audit of something like
that to make absolutely sure
and maybe some alerts in there if
someert like unusual search behaviors.
Absolutely. Absolutely. because you know
there are people you'd be amazed at how
outraged they become if they think they
have a spouse cheating on them or
something like that. These type of
problems have been going on with
technology for a while. You know, we had
a a former police chief, if you want to
call him that, and he actually took a
tracking device from narcotics and put
it on his wife's car. Now, of course,
that's designed to track drug dealers,
and you can't just put a tracking device
on a person's car. You got to have a
court order.
Yeah. But he actually put one on his
wife's car so he could keep up with her
to see what she was doing. So this
phenomena is not new. It's just the
technology [clears throat] is a
different and new technology.
And I'm sure he's not the only one to do
that. And he went without being
prosecuted, which he should have been
prosecuted.
But you know, but again, you know,
there's a lot of selective and political
prosecution. You, you know, one guy can
do something and not be prosecuted.
another guy. Well, we're going to
prosecute that particular person and
which is an inconsistency in the court
system in a whole another show we'll
talk about. But we've seen this before.
It's just now it's with a different
technology and an easier to use
technology. Now you don't have to
actually put something in the glove
compartment or stick something under the
car with a magnet. Now, all you got to
do is just have the tag number of who
you want to track
and put it in and on your phone
if you connect it to your phone, you can
see exactly where someone's going,
right? And you know the I mean we talked
a lot about the girlfriends, the
boyfriends and so on and so forth, but
you know it's a dangerous tool because
you can use it to go ahead and track
journalists, city council members, you
know, political opponents.
Um it it can get dicey in in there. and
who conducts the audit on that end of it
um is the other dicey part of this
because you know you basically telling
the public don't worry every search is
logged. I I don't think that's enough.
Um you just can't just say guess what
it's logged. Well just like the case you
just brought up a hundred
[clears throat] times on the same
person. I mean that's ridiculous. You
know, a security camera records the
front door of a bank. That's useful. But
if nobody ever watches the footage after
a robbery, what good did the is the
camera?
We got one better than that. When you
got cameras like at the courthouse, if
no one's watching
the cameras all the time, what good is
that other than, well, we recorded what
happened. Someone needs to constantly
watch it to say, "Hey, there's a problem
here. Hey, check this guy. looks like he
has a weapon or something like that,
right?
So, you're right. But like I said, what
what the real problem come is this.
Let's say you're the vict, you're a
woman and you feel that you're being
checked on flocked by someone at the
sheriff's office.
Well, you should be able to go to the
sheriff and say, um, sheriff, I think
I'm being checked on flocked by one of
your deputies, and he should be able to
tell you, okay, go see my internal
affairs. I'm going to have him come down
there. We're going to look into it.
We'll get to the bottom of it. But
again, what if it's the sheriff?
Yeah.
Himself that's checking flock, that's
checking his wife, that's checking his
side pieces or whatever. And that's the
situation we got in Clayton County with
the sheriff who's there now.
So, think about that.
So, you know, it there has to be things
put in place. I think it's better if the
state comes in and audits every agency
uh periodically. And then also there has
to be mechanisms where if someone makes
a complaint they can instantly okay put
their tag in and see if it's being ran
if it's being ran by who and why and is
there a case number and is there an
actual legitimate investigation going on
with it.
Correct. Correct. And I think that you
know that type of audit is is what we
need to do because an audit trail
without an audit is decoration
basically.
Absolutely. Absolutely. And so, you
know, these these parameters should
already be in people's general orders
already. Uh when you use a technology,
you have to go ahead and take a look at
what the blind spots are
and develop policies for thinking people
need to develop these policies so they
can go ahead and try to shift out
certain things before um it happens.
Now, you're not going to catch
everything because every situation can
be unique and challenge the narrative.
But let's just say, you know, if you're
let's just say this. Okay, let me give
you another scenario. Let's just say
your city installs 50 cameras. Yeah.
And you might think, okay, you know, my
local police department has 50 cameras.
Uh but what happens if the information
is shared through a larger law
enforcement network? Now, the question
changes there. It's no longer just, can
my police department search this? It's
who else can? another city, another
county.
Well, exactly. You know, in order for it
to really work, that's that's there's
just interepart interdep departmental
agreements with other agencies to give
access because especially take an area
like Atlanta. We got right in Atlanta
metro area is made up of uh five big
counties and then some other counties
actually 11 counties make up the Atlanta
metro area and it's easy to pass from
one jurisdiction to another. So in order
for flock to be effective, you've got to
have access because you could easily
start looking or chasing a car and
you're already in another county or
another city. So in [clears throat]
order for it to be effective, it can't
just be there. So every agency needs to
come under the same umbrella. And I
think probably the best way for this to
work is for the state to do audits on
flocks on the flock camera to see who's
accessing it and why. You know, it's one
thing to get an alert on flock. The
beautiful thing about Flock is this,
okay? A tag comes up stolen. The tags
there, Flock sees it. So that means
people should be alert. And really, if
Flock is used correctly and there's
enough cameras, it should almost be
impossible to steal a car.
Right. Um
cuz once that
Exactly. Once that tag is in on a
computer, stolen, unless they take the
tag off or whatever, boom, there's an
alert. and that alert and and and and
and you know there's kinks in it because
cars get stolen all the time, but when
they really
really magnified down and get this thing
perfected.
Once that happens, that car should get
tracked everywhere and
it should get stopped.
Meaning that meaning that there should
be no way it should be able to get away.
Now, we know I think the problem is some
people have access to flocks, some
don't. If they're not monitoring it or
whatever, you know, when we first start
experimenting with it, uh I had
deputies, okay, hey, I need you to
monitor these flocks and wait until you
get um a stolen car and be ready to go.
Meaning, I wanted to know every time a
stolen car ended my county and we're on
it cuz we want to send a message if you
steal a car, don't drive to Clayton
County. You got to understand you got to
have people have access to flock on the
road ready to go.
And then you got need to set it up and
really that's almost like 247.
Okay. [clears throat] But once that gets
narrowed down, it should almost be
impossible for a person to steal a car
and move anywhere where there's a flaw
camera. And that day is coming. But to
just say, "Okay, we'll put a tag in
there because hey, you know what? I
think my um you know I want to know
where my son's at or whatever. Well,
give me the tag. Well, you know, he he
went over there. Now, if your son is
legitimately missing, he's a missing
person and he's seen in that car and
there's a there's a report. No one's
seen him in a few days. Well, then
that's something that should be in it.
Where where was this car last seen? Cuz
that can help us find him. But just to
say, "Hey, I want to know what my son's
doing. Can you enter in that system you
got?" Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, he
went down there. Okay, thank you.
Right.
That's where we get into this area
that's
right
unconstitutional and wrong on so many
levels and you don't know how that can
end up. A confrontation where someone
could get hurt, could get killed because
they were given information that they
should have never had access to. Let me
tell you something. I can't tell you how
many times in my career I've had someone
call me up, a civilian. Uh, I had a a
person call me from South Carolina and
say, "Hey, listen. Um, are you able to
run a tag?" What do you mean am I able
to run a tag? Any cop can run a tag.
What are you talking about? I mean, can
you run a tag um in South Carolina?
Why are you asking me that? Well,
there's a suspicious car outside my
house. Well, call the police. They'll
run it for you.
Right.
Right. Well, it turns it turns out they
were really trying to check on someone
they were dating.
Of course, they got cussed out and hung
up on. Yeah.
But you'd be surprised how many people
if they got a friend who's a cop, hey,
can you run a tag for me?
Yeah.
And then I think you'd be surprised how
many dummies will actually do it.
Oh, yeah. For sure. Uh I've been asked a
number of times and that was a no.
[clears throat] Um I think that the
other part of Tommy G's video, I think I
got this right, was the secret
headquarters part, and it doesn't prove
what you might think it proves. So Tommy
and his crew tracked down flock
facilities, okay? They filmed employees.
They photographed license plates. They
repeatedly told people, "You're under
surveillance." And part of the point
was, "How does it feel when somebody
watches you?" That's was the point. I
understand what he was doing. And I
guess that makes great YouTube videos.
But here's the obvious story and irony
of it. A surveillance company doesn't
like strangers showing up and filming
around its facilities. But let's
separate the entertainment from the
evidence that they got, right? A company
controlling access to its workplace
doesn't prove its technology violates
your rights. And that's what he was
trying to do. And employees can have
legitimate security concerns. You can
criticize Flock's privacy practices
without pretending those two things are
legally identical. And the same applies
to photo photographing employees license
plates. It makes the viewers think,
"Wow, oh my goodness, this is so so
bad." And you know, and it makes you
feel uncomfortable. Um, and I I don't
know if that is the constitutional test
we should be doing. I I I just think it
made it for great entertainment, but I
it's not proving where he he just missed
the mark on that and it just puts a
nefarious tone on the flock safety and
well, you know, again, he's a YouTuber
and he has to give a certain amount of
I'm not I'm not trying to justify
whatever, but you know,
you know, he's an entertainer for me,
right? I mean, he's also documenting
stuff. But also is there some form of
entertainment in order to get views and
stuff like that.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
But you're right. But sometimes the
entertainment can give a false
perception.
Yeah. Great line. Yeah.
Yeah. And I thought his investigation
was strongest when he stayed focused on
the systems.
Exactly. It just fell apart and became
weakest when the story became let's make
flock employees uncomfortable, you know.
Yeah. Which that's ridiculous. you know,
and it's just, you know, and I'm he's a
very successful YouTuber and and I
understand that, you know, but he also
Tommy pulled his audience and I want you
to I want to talk about that, too.
Okay.
And the response was kind of
overwhelming. And what it really turned
out was it was more than 90% was opposed
to some of the polling he cited. And
this is what it sounded like. He was
making it seem like America's exspoken
about, you know, flock. And I was like,
not exactly. You know, you you think
about who is answering it. It's people
following a creator who just published a
story questioning mass surveillance.
What do you think they're going to go
ahead and say?
You know what I mean? They're following
you. They agree with you.
That's not scientific.
If used correctly, everybody wants a
flock system. Everybody would love to
have flock on their street, especially
if you had problems with burgies. That
meant that nobody could drive down that
street and drive out without being
recorded,
you know, cuz Right. And that means that
you're not just checking for a
girlfriend or something. You're
checking, hey, a crime occurred during
between this hour and this hour. How
many cars went in and out? Let me give
you a good example. We put a flock
system by the jail
on purpose. And I'll never forget this
when that incident happened and and I
was
coming out of office, which is a whole
different story. All of a sudden, drugs
started going in and out of the jail.
And I remember calling a dummy who's the
sheriff now and saying, "Listen, you
should be able to catch these people
bringing drugs in the jail. Don't you
have flaw cameras?"
And the answer I got was, "Well, you
know, a lot of cars come in and out of
the jail. A lot of cars come in 2 or
3:00 in the morning. All you got to do
is check the cameras and see what cars
left and came between the time that the
folks ran and threw the drugs over the
over the gate
and [clears throat] you got the people
who doing it and the phone went blank
and never heard nothing from it again
which is very very questionable. But
when they're put in certain situations,
nobody should be able to drive drugs in
there or not. So here's the crazy part.
When law enforcement halfop
what are they using it for?
Right. Okay, they the the the sheriff's
office I'm talking about is proven that
they're running it to check to see what
girls are doing, but you got a flock
camera right there by the jail. So, how
possibly can someone come there and do a
night drop without getting caught by
that camera. So, you're not checking for
that, but you're checking for this. And
that's where it takes leadership and
some good rules and parameters. But
anybody with any common sense, everybody
wants flock because I don't care who you
are. If you have a small child and he
got kidnapped and someone said, "Hey, I
saw the car. I didn't get the whole tag,
but I got the first three letters."
Well, you can put that in flock and
every car with those first three letters
in that particular area is going to
come. So, who wouldn't want that? Who
wouldn't want law enforcement to be able
to figure out the car that abducted
their child or abducted their
grandmother, whatever. So, you know, if
somebody has dementia,
you know, a six-year-old grandson
getting abducted. I mean, you know,
these alerts, right? Amber alerts,
a drive by shooting and and and and one
of your relatives, someone you care
about just got shot
and and they're in the car. You can't do
a driveby shooting unless you're in the
car. And now you got a camera that can
catch him and know what direction
they're going in. You know, we can't
throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yeah, I think. Right, right, right,
right. And and that's important to note
because Tommy did identify legitimate
problems. He showed why unrestricted
surveillance power deserves scrutiny,
but he all and he highlighted these
abuse. He forced people to think about
something most drivers probably never
noticed sitting beside the road.
And that's valuable journalism, but I
think the investigation stopped one
layer too early. Um because I'm less
worried about whether a camera sees my
license plate than about these matters
like who can go ahead and type the plate
into a computer? Why are they searching
it? You know, how many times? What
jurisdiction did they get this document
from? You know, things of that nature.
But the good overweighs
the bad.
It definitely overweighs the bad. And
the bad can easily easily be controlled,
right?
Because at the end of the day, okay, if
if Flock has an alert because that tag
comes back to a missing person or a
stolen car or whatever, okay,
that is very organic.
If you're putting a tag in, as long as
you're putting it in with a case number,
the report that goes with it to show why
you're putting it in, we had a
kidnapping, this is the tag, we need to
check flock, fine. But if you're just
putting a tag in with no explanation,
with no case number, whatever, well,
then that's how you catch these rogue
officers and get rid of them.
Mhm. Yeah. and and that and I think that
that's where we land this plane because
it's the people who we trust to use it
properly
uh is using these powerful tools uh to
go ahead and they misuse you know and
misuse the public's trust and this is
where we have videos and debates um you
know power is seductive and these
individuals are using it for nefarious
reasons. And then we have, you know, uh,
a whole bunch of constitutional
questions that come out of that.
But the responsibility comes right back
to the agencies, the policies, the
misuse of those. It is not the apparatus
itself.
People control those apparatuses. So
that's where we
that's where we land this plan.
And we'll land it and we'll land it with
this. You said something about power
being seductive. You're very very
correct. Always remember this. Power
doesn't change anyone. It just enhances
who they already are.
Right. They were a stalker before. They
just got, "Oh, why? I got a tool. I can
stalk better."
Right. Right. Right.
Exactly. And now I want Hill Nation to
answer one question. You know, and I
want to make this very specific. You
know, police can use Flock to locate an
abducted child, but the same system
could potentially be abused by an
officer looking for somebody that has no
legitimate reason to track them. Would
you allow cameras in your community if
every search was audited? Yes or no? And
tell me why. So, I'm Jerome Hill. With
me is retired Sheriff Victor Hill. And
we will see you in the next episode.
This is the Hill of Justice.