|
Presence of Automatic License Plate Reading Camera in Hull Raises Questions About Privacy
Because of the importance of this issue and how it affects all of us and our right to privacy, I am reprinting an op ed from the Hull Times issue of 9/10/26 that I wrote.
In early August, the Hull Police Department installed a FLOCK camera on Nanatsket Avenue across from the Dunkin Donuts parking lot. This camera is called an Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) camera. This means that it records the license plate number make and model, and any bumper stickers or decals of every car that passes it, and then this information is added to a national database of more than 120,000 cameras.
The question that needs to be asked is if the information these cameras provide is making us safer, or is this possible safety benefit outweighed by the privacy issues involved. To dare two dozen Massachusetts towns have canceled or not renewed their FLOCK contracts. Plus there have been several incidents across the state of local officers abusing the information provided by these cameras.
I am not suggesting that the Hull Police Department or its officers would abuse this information. My concern is with FLOCK as a private company. While our police are dedicated to protecting and serving residents, the corporation that supplies these cameras and maintains the data has no similar public obligation, nor is the use of its information clearly regulated by law. FLOCK exists to generate profits for its investors. Once information about our travel by car is recorded, it is automatically added to a national database controlled by FLOCK. There are no clear legal limits on how the company may use the information it collects.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, "Flock's threat to privacy stems from its operation of more than 120,000 automatic license plate readers nationwide, which includes broad location data collection and sharing. ALPR companies like Flock violate our privacy across the country by taking photos of every vehicle passing their cameras, logging detailed information about them into a massive nationwide database, making it possible to track these vehicles and apply AI to uncover their occupants' private patterns of life."
While Flock has made some changes in how it shares and maintains information collected, the ACLU has expressed the following concern with this collection of data and intrusions into the privacy of all Americans, whether or not they are suspected of a crime: "Transforming an exceptionally dangerous mass surveillance system into one that is fully protective of civil rights and civil liberties is a difficult, if not impossible, task. That is even more the case with a company like Flock, whose nearly $1 billion in venture capitalist funding has locked it into an operational model that seeks to trade our privacy for massive profits."
The real issue here is whether you want your personal activities traced and recorded even though you are not suspected of a crime. Every time you leave your house and drive past this camera, regardless for the reason for your trip, or the number of times a day you drive past it, your information is captured and recorded. The Hull PD has adopted "guidelines and procedures for the proper use and application of ALPR systems, the management of the data, and the maintenance of the equipment." (you can access that information at
https://transparency.flocksafety.com/hull-ma-pd)
Even if you trust the Hull PD, who are our neighbors, with this information and a record of your comings and goings, they do not control the use of the data once it is entered into the system, which happens automatically. Do you want a huge corporation funded by venture capitalists controlling your information? You may say all social media companies already do this, but you have a choice not to use these social media outlets that sell your private information without your consent. You do not have a choice to opt out of the private data that is collected by these Flock cameras, nor do you have a say in how that information is used.
This is an example of how our ability to reguiate new technologies lgs behind the development and use of that technology. Are we willing ot sacrifice our right to privacy as law-abiding citizens for some possible public safety benefit?
Once this data is in the national Flock system, it is searchable by any law enforcement agency throughout the country. This data has been used to track women suspected of traveling from one state to another for abortion services. In addition, more than 50 police officers across the country have been suspended for abusing this information. So, this is not so much a question of whether we trust the Hull PD, but what happens and who can access this info once it is entered into the national database, where it remains for seven days. Currently there are no legal limitations on what Flock or police departments can do with this information once it is collected. lock has introduced some guidelines in response to the blowback on its technology, but these are self-imposed and can be overruled by the company at any time.
In practice, the use of Flock cameras is warrantless mass surveillance across the country.
Some people have likened Flock surveillance to the ubiquity of Ring door cameras, Yes, these cameras record activity outside the home, but this information is not entered into a database and is owned by the homeowner, not the police. The same is true of automatic toll systems and social media. We can chose to opt out of these, but that is not a choice when it comes to Flock surveillance. In fact, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical movements. When our every move is captured by Flock surveillance, there is no longer an expectation of privacy when we leave our homes.
| 
