Here & Now

The Rise of and Opposition to Flock Cameras in Wisconsin

Frederica Freyberg:
Finally tonight, you’ve probably driven past one but may not have noticed it. Automated license plate readers or ALPR cameras are small and usually found near stoplights and street signs on roads and intersections across the country. These cameras have grown in popularity and in controversy over recent years. “Here & Now” reporter Steven Potter looked into their use around Wisconsin.

Steven Potter:
There’s nothing flashy about ALPR cameras, and that’s on purpose. These automated license plate reading devices sit inconspicuously, usually on a pole and under a solar panel. They automatically read your license plate and retain an image of your car with a date and a time stamp of when you went past it. That information and image is then sent off to the law enforcement agency that contracted with the company that operates the cameras. They’re commonly called Flock cameras, after the most popular brand that makes and deploys the devices. According to groups that track them, there are an estimated 130,000 such cameras in the United States. In Wisconsin, it’s estimated there are as many as 2,000 of the cameras used by more than 200 law enforcement agencies. But over the last couple of years, Flock and other similar companies have been catching flak from opponents concerned about privacy. Calling them tools of mass surveillance that operate without a warrant, critics say the cameras invade an individual’s privacy before and without prior knowledge of any crime being committed. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union calls the cameras creepy and says that the storage of images and information in national databases lacks regulation. Opposition to the cameras is showing up in Wisconsin, with reports of them being vandalized and taken down. And many governments around Wisconsin are taking action against them. So far, Dane County, as well as cities such as Fitchburg, Stoughton, Monona and others, have stopped, canceled or not renewed contracts with the Flock Safety Company. And in the city of Verona, officials put bags over the Flock cameras after the company didn’t move fast enough to remove them. The largest user of Flock cameras in Wisconsin is the City of Milwaukee Police Department. Cases of misuse of the technology by people with access to the cameras are also cropping up. In mid-August, a Menasha police officer was sentenced for using Flock cameras for illegal surveillance, and two Milwaukee police officers have been criminally charged with illegally tracking people using the cameras. Those who are in favor of these cameras and tracking devices say they are an invaluable law enforcement tool that helps apprehend those who commit crimes of all kinds, ranging from driving infractions to car theft and more serious offenses. The topic of Flock and APLR cameras came up in the most recent episode of “In Focus with Murv Seymour,” where he interviewed former Madison Police Chief Noble Wray.

Noble Wray:
Where it becomes a question is proactively how it is used. So if I’m using this information and then I act on it, even if you have not committed a crime right then and there, I go knock on your door and say, “Hey, you came through this intersection at such and such date and time.” This is a potential. “And based upon the information we have, you have a warrant for your arrest.” So people ask those questions or you, you were here and you’re being surveilled. Now people complain about the issues of privacy.

Murv Seymour:
And what’s done with that information once it’s gathered, what happens to it at that point?

Noble Wray:
That’s another issue in most states, information has been historically treated and there are laws that govern how long you can maintain a record. Where does the information go, who has access to it? So one of the other concerns that communities need to wrestle with is that if a third party has data and information and if the government has access to that, have they made that third party become a de facto part of the government because they’re accessing their information? But where is that stored? What information do they have on you? Don’t you have a right to know what your government has on you? These are questions that communities really do need to wrestle with.

Murv Seymour:
Yeah, and we know that some law enforcement agencies, departments around the state have been moving away from that system. Why do you think it’s so controversial and why would they move away from it you think?

Noble Wray:
I think first of all, I think it was developed in many instances to improve public safety. I’m not going to conclude that that was not the reason. But I think that right now we’re behind the curve. We are behind the curve because we have not, as a community, provided what they should be used for, what are the standards, what are the standards of privacy that that community accepts? How should the police department use it? Some communities have gone, and what they’ve done is that they’ve pulled together stakeholders and they’ve discussed from every branch they pull together people that are, you know, community members, civil liberties. They’ve pulled together people that are subject matter experts, the manufacturers, and they have come up with some broad guidelines. And then the community starts to lay out for law enforcement – here’s some policies, here are some procedures, here are some ordinances that we think would work. And they all have to be constantly improved. But right now we’re behind the eight ball because we have not done that. And so we’re reaching for this technology before we know its total impact and we’re using it before we know the total impact.