Local News
City leaders agreed to halt the Flock Safety cameras while they look into how data is shared with law enforcement.
A Flock Safety license plate reader. Courtesy of Flock Safety
Only a few months after giving the green light, Cambridge’s City Council unanimously decided on Monday to stop using the Flock Safety license plate reader cameras because of increasing privacy and data sharing concerns.
Flock Safety switched off all 16 cameras in the city on Tuesday following the council’s vote to pause their operation.
The cameras were put up last September after a 6-3 vote back in February approved using this technology.
The council revisited the topic after residents, the ACLU, and privacy advocacy group Digital Fourth voiced strong objections.
They pointed out that the company shares license plate info in a national database accessible by law enforcement agencies across the country.
Documents obtained by the ACLU of Massachusetts reveal police statewide are tracking drivers’ movements and sharing that info with over 7,000 agencies nationwide – including some from states with restrictive abortion laws, bans on gender-affirming care for minors, or local police forced to enforce immigration rules.
According to 404 Media, one misuse case involved Texas law enforcement using Flock’s database to track a woman who allegedly self-induced an abortion. That agency reportedly misled officials in Massachusetts to get her location details.
404 Media also reports some local cops have searched Flock data for ICE agents.
“What I’m really hearing is that the most criticism is of the company Flock,” said City Councilor Paul Toner, who wanted to give police time to look into these claims about the company.
“Technology can be very useful, but at this time it can be misused and terribly dangerous,” City Councilor Marc Mc Govern said.
Flock Safety responded saying they’ll cooperate fully with Cambridge during this review period.
“The allegations about Flock’s relationship with federal agencies are untrue – these questions have been addressed and, in some cases, … have led to improvements in our products,” their statement read.
Police Commissioner Christine Elow noted that they intend to use this tech strictly for public safety goals like finding stolen cars, investigating serious crimes, and making traffic safer.
Still, privacy questions popped up leading them to audit how police use it as explained in a letter sent to council members.
Elow mentioned she’s open to figuring out responsible ways of using these cameras while “they figure out how to protect our community from overreach from our federal government.”
Cambridge Police Department Superintendent Peter Vellucci shared that half of the $48,000 price tag for this surveillance program came from a federal grant – about $24,000 – with the city covering the rest for those 16 cameras.
The council passed a motion sending this issue over to their Public Safety Committee and will need another vote later on whether or not they switch these cameras back on.
The concerns here echo similar ones in Illinois where their secretary of state claimed data was shared illegally by Flock and ended contracts with them.
Evanston, Illinois told Flock Safety no more camera usage but then found out they reinstalled them without permission – leading Evanston officials just putting plastic covers over those cameras.
Eugene, Oregon also stopped using these cameras temporarily due to privacy issues.
This comes shortly after people raised alarms about private real estate companies installing similar devices in Brookline too.
</b
City Councilor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler agrees saying this kind of tech can enable federal government overreach.
</b
“The data is in the cloud and all these systems are interconnected,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said. “We have to be vigilant.”
</b
Beth Treffeisen covers general news for Boston. com focusing on crime, local happenings, and business around New England.
Sign up for today’s newsletter
Get everything you need each morning delivered straight into your inbox before your day starts.! function(f, b, e, v, n, t, s) {if(f. fbq)return; n=f. fbq=function(){n. call Method? n. call Method. apply(n, arguments): n. queue. push(arguments)}; if(! f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n. push=n; n. loaded=!0; n. version=’2.0′; n. queue=[]; t=b. create Element(e); t. async=!0; t. src=v; s=b. get Elements By Tag Name(e)[0]; s. parent Node. insert Before(t, s)}(window, document,’script’, ‘https://connect. facebook. net/en_US/fbevents. js’); const onetrust Storage Consent = JSON. parse(local Storage. get Item( ‘consent_one_trust_bdc’ ) ); if ( ( onetrust Storage Consent !== null ) ) { if ( onetrust Storage Consent. C0004 !== true ) { fbq(‘consent’, ‘revoke’); fbq(‘data Processing Options’, []); } else { fbq(‘consent’, ‘grant’); fbq(‘data Processing Options’, [‘LDU’], 0, 0); } } fbq(‘init’, ‘989222871864976’); fbq(‘track’, ‘Page View’); ! function(f, b, e, v, n, t, s){if(f. fbq)return; n=f. fbq=function() {n. call Method? n. call Method. apply(n, arguments): n. queue. push(arguments)} ; if(! f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n. push=n; n. loaded=!0; n. version=’2.0′; n. queue=[]; t=b. create Element(e); t. async=!0; t. src=v; s=b. get Elements By Tag Name(e)[0]; s. parent Node. insert Before(t, s)}(window, document,’script’,’https://connect. facebook. net/en_US/fbevents. js’); const onetrust Storage Consent = JSON. parse(local Storage. get Item( ‘consent_one_trust_bdc’ ) ); if ( ( onetrust Storage Consent !== null ) && (onetrust Storage Consent. C0004 !== true ) ) { fbq(‘consent’, ‘revoke’); fbq(‘data Processing Options’, []); } else { fbq(‘consent’, ‘grant’); fbq(‘data Processing Options’, [‘LDU’], 0 , 0); } fbq(‘init’, ‘813236348753005’); fbq(‘track’, ‘Page View’);
Source link
