By Dr. Maurice Vann | The Community Safety Exchange
The national controversy surrounding Flock Safety cameras is usually framed as a debate between two competing interests: public safety and privacy. That framing is incomplete. There is another dimension of the Flock controversy that deserves considerably more attention: What happens when the people entrusted with surveillance technology cannot themselves be trusted to use it appropriately? That question should be at the center of the emerging debate over automated license plate readers and other surveillance technologies.
A Debate That Is Becoming Increasingly Heated
The intensity of the controversy was demonstrated recently in Sullivan County, Tennessee. During a County Commission work session concerning Flock cameras, Commissioner Joe Carr directed an extraordinary statement toward a representative of Flock Safety. Carr described the company as corrupt and said Flock CEO Garrett Langley should be publicly hanged for treason. Commission Chairman John Gardner immediately stopped Carr and made clear that threats of violence would not be tolerated. For some Americans, it has become a question about the relationship between citizens, corporations, police departments, and government itself. And that makes this a community-safety issue.
Flock cameras may serve legitimate law-enforcement purposes. Automated license plate readers may help investigators locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles associated with serious crimes, find missing people, and generate investigative leads. Yet, the existence of legitimate uses does not eliminate the possibility of illegitimate ones. Recent cases around the country demonstrate why that distinction matters.
Police officers have accessed license-plate-reader systems for reasons having nothing to do with legitimate investigations. Some have allegedly used the technology to monitor current or former romantic partners. Others have reportedly searched acquaintances or other people for personal reasons. These aren’t merely theoretical privacy concerns. They represent an abuse of governmental authority. In one recent Florida case, an officer was accused of using Flock surveillance technology to track his estranged wife more than 700 times. In South Carolina, an officer was fired after allegedly searching an ex-partner’s license plate 166 times.
The question therefore cannot simply be: Can Flock cameras help police solve crimes? Of course they can. The more difficult question is: Who is watching the people who are watching us? The problem isn’t necessarily the camera. The problem is power without sufficient accountability.
Community safety is broader than policing. It asks us to examine the institutions, relationships, environments, services, and systems that allow people to feel secure in their communities. And one essential component of community safety is institutional legitimacy. People must believe that public institutions exercise their authority fairly, transparently, lawfully, and consistently.
