The proliferation of Flock cameras in some parts of the county has elicited scowls, rather than smiles, from some people who’ve passed in front of the lens.
In Burlington, a couple of these wary photo subjects have gone to confront the city’s elected leaders about the police department’s use of this AI-enabled equipment.
On June 16, Ilsa Spaan of 609 Trollinger Street availed herself of a designated public comment period to warn Burlington’s city council that these automated license plate readers may be far more sinister than the city’s police force has acknowledged.
“According to my research, less than 1 percent of scanned vehicles are tied to any crime. Meanwhile, 100 percent of drivers have their sensitive location data pulled, stored, and shared with hundreds of out-of-state agencies and federal authorities without their consent.”
– Burlington resident Ilsa Spaan
“According to my research,” Spaan told the council, “less than 1 percent of scanned vehicles are tied to any crime. Meanwhile, 100 percent of drivers have their sensitive location data pulled, stored, and shared with hundreds of out-of-state agencies and federal authorities without their consent.”
The council heard similar qualms on July 21 when Michael Barone of 3032 Weston Court signed up to address the city’s elected leaders.
“Flock is being turned into an observation-slash-data collection tool, which I think is very dangerous and goes against the liberty and privacy that people in this country deserve.”
– Burlington resident Michael Barone
“My concern is the dangerous trajectory,” Barone asserted. “Flock is being turned into an observation-slash-data collection tool, which I think is very dangerous and goes against the liberty and privacy that people in this country deserve.”
Barone went on to allege that Flock’s license plate readers have “facial recognition” capabilities, and he recounted a case in Ohio where someone was supposedly aggregating Flock data from various agencies and using facial recognition technology to pick out specific individuals.
Graham’s city council has also fielded objections from residents to its comparatively more modest collection of Flock cameras.
On July 14, Alex Stock of 532 Ward Street told the city’s leaders that this equipment has brought the atmosphere of a “surveillance state” to the city of Graham.
“I’m not comfortable with a private company tracking my vehicle wherever it goes, and I fail to see the necessity of such scrutiny on the citizens of Graham. There’s no crime wave that I’m aware of.”
– Graham resident Alex Stock
“I’m not comfortable with a private company tracking my vehicle wherever it goes,” he added, “and I fail to see the necessity of such scrutiny on the citizens of Graham. There’s no crime wave that I’m aware of.”
These cameras came up again on September 8, when Eric Crissman of 208 Albright Avenue asked the city council’s members if they had actually signed off on this technology.
“Flock cameras are privately-owned and all the information that they glean goes to a private company. I’m being surveilled without my consent, without a warrant. The Flock cameras know where I’m going, know what I drive, and know how many times I pass them.”
– Graham resident Eric Crissman
These cameras came up again on September 8, when Eric Crissman of 208 Albright Avenue asked the city council’s members if they had actually signed off on this technology.
“Flock cameras are privately-owned and all the information that they glean goes to a private company,” Crissman declared in an apparent misapprehension based on the police chief’s account. “I’m being surveilled without my consent, without a warrant. The Flock cameras know where I’m going, know what I drive, and know how many times I pass them.”
As ominous as Crissman and others have judged these cameras to be, their presence along the public right-of-way hasn’t posed any concerns to the city’s police chief.
Neil told The Alamance News that he sees little distinction between Flock cameras and the sort of “surveillance” that anyone with a smartphone can do along city streets.
“There’s no expectation of privacy [on public roads],” he went on emphasize, “and there’s no Fourth Amendment issue.”
