rurpFeb 23

Flock cameras gifted by Horowitz Foundation, avoiding public oversight

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/vegas-police-are-big-users-of-license-plate-readers-public-has-little-input-because-its-a-gift

Vegas police are big users of license plate readers. Public has little input because it's a gift.

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department quietly entered an agreement in 2023 with Flock Security, an automated license plate reader company that uses cameras to collect vehicle information and cross-reference it with police databases. Unlike many of the other police departments around the country that use the cameras in their police work, Metro funds the project with donor money funneled into a private foundation.

The Nevada Independent
Show threadtptacekFeb 23

I think the money is a red herring here.

In Oak Park, Illinois, we ran into a rhyming version of this problem: the only control we had about what technology OPPD deployed was a spending limit ($15K, if I'm remembering right), above which they had to ask the board for an appropriation. Our pilot deployment of Flock cameras easily went underneath that limit.

I'm not reflexively anti-ALPR camera. I don't like them, but I do local politics and know what my neighbors think, and a pretty significant chunk of my neighbors --- in what is likely one of the top 10 bluest municipalities in the United States (we're the most progressive in Chicagoland, which is saying something) --- want these cameras as a response to violent crime.

But I do believe you have to run a legit process to get them deployed.

OPPD was surprised when, after attempting to graduate their pilot to a broader deployment, a minor fracas erupted at the board. I'm on Oak Park's information systems commission and, with the help of a trustee and after talking to the Board president, got "what the hell do we do about the cameras" assigned to my commission. In conjunction with our police oversight commission (but, really, just us on the nerd commission), we:

* Got General Orders put in place for Flock usage that limited it exclusively to violent crime.

* Set up a monthly usage report regime that allowed the Village to get effectiveness metrics that prevented further rollout and ultimately got the cameras shut down.

* Presented to the board and got enacted an ACLU CCOPS ordinance, which requires board approval for anything broadly construed as "surveillance technology" for policing, whether you spend $1, $100,000, or $0 on it.

Especially if you're in a suburb, where the most important units of governance are responsive to like 15,000-50,000 people, this stuff is all pretty doable if you engage in local politics. It's much trickier if you're within the city limits of a major metro (we're adjacent to Chicago, and by rights should be a part of it), but still.

Show threadrighthandFeb 23
The money being a red herring is a convenient excuse to say “surveillance capitalism is fine because there’s already a legal path to this dystopia and this idea fits right in”. These capital interests have shown even if there is a legal path to stop they will ignore it and try to circumvent it. So the money isn’t a red herring because the money is being used to bypass the legal pathway to stop the deployments.
Show threadtptacekFeb 23
This comment is one very long sentence and because it replies to me I'm sorry to have to say I'm not smart enough to understand what it's saying. Did you try to get an ordinance enacted in your municipality and fail? I'd love to hear how that went, and maybe offer advice.
Show threadrighthandFeb 23
You’re very clearly defensive about defending flock installs, but yeah I will go back and edit my comment to clarify. Apologies your majesty for forgetting some punctuation while I was sick.
Show threadtptacekFeb 23
I'm defensive about defending Flock installs? I'm one of a small minority of HN commenters that has actually gotten Flock cameras disabled across a municipality.
Show threadrighthand
Oh sorry I can’t read more than 1 sentence so I don’t know what I’m replying to, you’ll have to reword yours.
Feb 23 at 10:50pmWeb
Show threadtptacekFeb 24
I love that you had to edit this from your original comment, which said "I can't read more than 2 sentences" (in response to my 2-sentence comment). Well played!