Letter to the Editor
Editor, The Times: The use of Flock (or any other automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras) for surveillance is a violation of the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution. It doesn’t matter if law enforcement officers (LEO’s) deem it as the greatest tool for law enforcement that has ever been created. The fact remains it is an unlawful invasion of personal rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment. Blatant capturing of surveillance images/ video without probable cause is akin to a fictional society in the movie Minority Report, where people were hunted down based on probability or premise of committing a crime. There have been countless horror stories of people across the country mistakenly accosted by Gestapo LEOs because a camera system identified their vehicle as “possibly” suspicious activity attached to crime. Unfortunately, machines and AI specifically make mistakes quite often and the recourse from the LEO community is “Oh well our Flock camera made a mistake”.
LEOs have an almost impossible job to do. I understand that and I sympathize with their frustration. But, in the end it’s their job to protect and serve, not predict and acost.
I urge the community to continue to oppose the use of the ALPR camera systems in our area. The concerns about our rights are just the tip of the iceberg. Other questions remain with concerns to the data that is captured by the systems. Our departments do not own the data nor do they own the cameras. My concerns are where is the data stored? Who has access to it? Flock systems are privately held companies and therefore retain rights to the cameras and the data it captures. What is preventing access from the highest bidder? These are just some questions I’m not sure that our community was presented with at the time of the adoption of the cameras.
I’ll end this with the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Eddie Murray Blackshear
Comments