Letter to the Editor: Use of Flock Cameras Plagued with Problems

John Wolf

For those in tune with the evolution of technology in law enforcement, or even those who casually read the news, you're probably aware of the prevalence of Flock cameras across the country. Frankly, I was unaware of their existence until it became widely reported that law enforcement officers were abusing these systems for their own benefit. As recently as a few days ago, an officer lost their job for using the information collected by Flock cameras to essentially stalk an ex-lover. The more days that pass, the more the American public seems to be in agreement that this technology does more harm than good. Given how divided we are as a nation at this point in history, that's a remarkable feat.

However, when I contacted County Councilman Tommy Dunn, who represents District Five, in which I currently reside, I received absolutely no response. While it could be argued that a politician ignoring their constituents is the norm these days, it seems that, nationwide, the only people who want these Flock cameras are out-of-touch politicians and law enforcement officers who would initiate a traffic stop in an armored tank if they could get funding. This refusal to even acknowledge receipt of my email prompted me to write this letter, as I feel this issue is of great importance to the citizenry.

First, I want to acknowledge that we should always look for new tools to provide law enforcement officers and agencies with the means to prevent and detect criminal activity. Throughout the history of humankind, we have continuously pushed for innovation to ensure the safety of society as a whole. From fingerprinting to DNA tests, the methods used to solve crimes have evolved thanks to a mix of science, engineering, and willpower. It is arguably harder in this day and age to commit a crime and evade criminal responsibility than at any other point in history.

I also want to mention that the idea of security cameras in urban areas is not a novel one. For years, many areas have utilized various forms of video and photographic capture technology to encapsulate a moment in time that could provide evidence of wrongdoing. Even the more controversial stoplight and speed cameras arguably have positive benefits for the areas in which they are located when examining statistics related to automobile accidents and the like.

But Flock cameras are not the same. Unlike the video and photographic technology that I previously mentioned, Flock cameras accumulate information into databases that generally have no bearing on one's criminal intent or activities for upwards of a month at a time. While police officers already have access to people's vehicle information when investigating a traffic violation or alleged criminal activity, Flock goes beyond that and collects details about everyone's vehicles despite those individuals not having been suspected or accused of any criminal activity. This is a complete contrast to real-time security technology that simply documents a video or photograph of a point in time, because every person who passes one of those cameras is not documented in some kind of database and the footage is generally only utilized when some kind of criminal activity is suspected.

One could argue that if a driver has not committed any crime, they have nothing to worry about. But that is the same argument people have made for years to justify government intrusiveness, such as the Patriot Act, and we now know how that worked out in terms of the collection of American citizens' private data. Why would one want to give the government, local, state, or federal, more information about their private life than they absolutely need to? This is something I believe those who identify as liberal and those who lean more Libertarian can both agree on. Even my friend, who is one of the most enthusiastic conservatives I know, opposes the use of Flock cameras. It's an invasion of people's privacy, and there is frankly no reason why a government database of people's traveling habits or even their political bumper stickers needs to exist.

It could also be argued that the use of these Flock cameras unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proving innocence to those captured by these devices. As an example, someone could be captured traveling down a street where a burglary took place. Days or even weeks later, they're being interrogated by law enforcement due to Flock's registration of their license plate details. Despite having not committed a crime, they are now needlessly responsible for providing exact details on where they were going and why they were going there. They may have to dig for receipts, provide phone records, locate witnesses, all because they were driving home from work. But what if they can't provide any of these items because they drove straight home to an empty house without stopping for gas or making a phone call? Just like that, they're the main suspect simply for driving by one of these cameras. It's a fictitious example, but it's not far-fetched to believe.

But worse than that is the potential for abuse. In fact, it's not even a potential as much as it has already been proven. Officers are already being accused of using Flock technology to essentially stalk former lovers, as indicated in the Mauldin firing of a police officer, among other alleged abuses. While I don't necessarily identify as someone who wants to defund the police, I am also a realist and recognize that there are people in law enforcement who will skirt and abuse the law when they can. Giving people like this the tools to harass innocent citizens is simply a bamboozling policy to me. It would be one thing if we could trust those bestowed with this tool to use it properly, but we already see that is not going to be the case. Furthermore, Flock seems to be more interested in resolving a PR issue than addressing these serious concerns. While some of their proposed changes may create barriers to abuse, they do not seem to be sufficient to prevent it altogether, and those committed to beating the system will likely find a way with little effort.

Efforts to remove these cameras are gaining traction, even close to home. In Oconee County, initial approval was given to a measure that would ban the use of Flock cameras. For those who don't know upstate geography, that is a stone's throw from Anderson. While these efforts seemed at first to primarily take place in left-leaning localities, we have reached a point where even solidly Republican areas are rejecting this technology. So how is it that Anderson County has twelve of these cameras currently in place? How is it that, when addressed with these comments by constituents, County Councilman Tommy Dunn remains silent?

I do not know if a time will present itself when this technology will be appropriate for use by law enforcement. But what I do know is that, in its infancy, the use of Flock cameras is plagued with problems. From the potential for abuse to the possible constitutional questions that could arise from their use, these devices should not be funded with our tax dollars. I will go a step further in saying that anyone running for local office who refuses to denounce this technology and tacitly endorses it by remaining silent will not receive my vote in the future. I would encourage my fellow voters to agree to do the same.