Flock cameras gifted by Horowitz Foundation, avoiding public oversight
thenevadaindependent.com
thenevadaindependent.com
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.
(For people unfamiliar with Chicagoland, Oak Park borders Chicago to its west and is like our version of Park Slope, and Evanston, which houses Northwestern University, borders Chicago to the North and is like our Westchester County.)
I was pretty irritable about us cancelling our Flock contract. We did a metric fuckton of regulation on our cameras; I think we may have had the most sophisticated ALPR regulation of any ALPR in the country (granted, that's a statement about how little regulation there is of them, but still). We could have disabled our cameras but kept the contract, kept our standing as a municipality that uses Flock, and then shopped our ordinances and police general orders to the neighboring municipalities.
Instead, we performatively cancelled our contract, while remaining 4.5 square miles surrounded on all sides by totally unregulated ALPRs.
Back in the day when first ALPRs went into operation (I don't remember, was it 10 or 15 years ago) it took about two weeks for the data to appear on darkweb.
Then the same happened to citywide face recognition.
The only way to stop abuse is to not collect the data : ban the systems entirely.
> I'm not reflexively anti-ALPR camera. I don't like them
Even LLMs can correctly parse this commenters intention.
I read it and I admire what you accomplished!
Most of the stuff that really impacts your community, like Flock, is governed locally, by very small numbers of people.
The money isn't the problem, deploying surveillance measures without Democratic involvement is.
Idk how you come out of the top comment thinking they were or flock.
Idk how you come out of my comment thinking I missed the whole plea to “please stay inside democracy lines while your opponent runs laps around you with money”.
> Metro funds the project with donor money funneled into a private foundation. It’s an arrangement that allows Metro to avoid soliciting public comment on the surveillance technology
It doesn't matter whether the cameras are a good idea or not, the police should not be able to use a "donation" (from a guy who's going to profit from the donated equipment) to pretend they haven't done anything the public needs to know about.
The money is the main issue here, without it the public would have had a chance to discuss all the things you're talking about, and maybe reject them or put in some limitations. I would object to any secret arrangement like this, even if it was something completely innocuous like pencils for schools. There's no reason for significant acquisitions to be secret, and even if the government is acquiring something good and necessary, I don't want public services to be dependent on the generosity of some random dude without public discussion.
It seems like the main problem you identified in your original comment is "I do believe you have to run a legit process to get them deployed." What is currently preventing this from happening? The only barrier I'm seeing is Ben Horowitz and Flock finding creative ways to temporarily let their customers not pay for their services.
I think maybe one thing that's happening here is that people thing literally the only possible control against unwanted ALPR deployment is expenditure rules. But this is a story about one way a large metro got around expenditure rules. Meanwhile: there are model ordinances you can adopt that completely moot the price/gift issue. Pass them!
The point of my comment is "here is something you can do besides yelling on message boards about how much you don't like surveillance".
I agree that the concrete bad thing that happened here is that cameras were installed without public consent. You are responding by saying "well the public should have predicted that and passed an ordinance before the police had a chance to try it". I am saying the police should be forced to consult the public when they make any significant acquisition, in any area, not just surveillance.
Perhaps the cost threshold could be amended to apply to the value of the good or services received, not the amount paid for them.
You also are not addressing the issue of government dependency on a private individual. Let's say Vegas has a public debate and decides they are in favor of cameras with no restrictions. Great, so is it now ok that Horowitz is donating them? No, it's still bad, because he might decide to stop being generous at any time, and then what happens? Vegas either suddenly loses an important service they depend on, or is forced to immediately pay whatever exorbitant price Flock/Horowitz comes up with.
Do you understand what I'm saying? How is any community supposed to prevent every possible violation before it happens? Read through the history of police misconduct in this country and I'm sure you'll find some creative things you never would have thought of.
I agree that a blacklist approach doesn't work. But neither does an expenditure limit. A value added limit is I think just a roundabout way of expressing a whitelist approach? Which seems like the only sensible solution to me. Ideally all deployments should require case-by-case approval unless an ordinance is passed to blanket approve an entire technology class for a specific type of usage.
Donations would be less of a problem with this system in place, but I still think it would be irresponsible to accept a donation without a plan to pay for it in the future if donations stop, and I also wouldn't want officers to feel indebted to some rich guy.
Because even $1 for surveillance is too much.
Did I miss anything?
The issue is that Las Vegas, like most major metros, doesn't appear to have ordinances preventing their police department from deploying cameras without the consent of the city council. That's fixable! There's model ordinances for this.
YCombinator's goal is to make a lot of money by causing there to be more startups, and therefore more successor startups. "Make the world a better place" is not one of their success metrics. They're investors, not altruists.
(And yes, I know where I am.)
We should not expect any VC no matter how big or small to care.
i am trying (and failing!) to see any reason the account age matters in this particular case. but i could be missing something.
(i did not make this account just to reply to you)
Also, if someone were to destroy one of these things, the damage caused, by a similar logic, is $0, right? /s
It sure wouldn't have been hard to create a digital deadman that released his information while he stayed in the country leveraging whistleblower protection. Or, he could have found his version of deepthroat and told his story. Or, he dumps everything on 4chan or on the Tor network and let someone else expose it... if all he actually cared about was exposing the moral ineptitude of the US.
Alas no, he was much more interested in the attention and TV interviews.
He lives in exile because he wasn't interested in whistleblowing.
If you believe otherwise I'm open to your theory but I think it is on you to provide a plausible explanation here.
This again leads me back to, Snowden didn’t give a fuck about whistleblowing. He just didn’t.
We are at a weird place right now in the US.
Just alone note that not a single tyrant of the past could have even dreamt of the power and control over society that even just currently exists, let alone what is in the pipeline.
Do you remember Minority Report? That seems to be approaching things, but even that did not include many things that even already exist. Frankly, I think authors and directors didn’t include many aspects of things, simply because audiences of the past would have probably not found it believable that even just current things existed, because how could they, it would seem so utterly crushing and depressive that it would break the suspense when you can’t see any prospect for survival/success.
They're worried that the system could be co-opted to enforce the law on law breakers? Isn't that the job description of a cop?
This is how toxic American political discourse has become. Instead of pointing out that mass surveillance is evil because of the potential for abuse, they're saying it's bad because cops could do their jobs.
Your mobile provider knows your exact location at any point in time, and the NSA probably has access to most big tech data. Those tell you much more than a license plate reader.
In much of Europe, it is quite normal to see cameras everywhere both for traffic enforcement and for crime prevention. They are generally popular with the public, eg. in the UK with a >80% approval rate. In many cities, essentially every corner has CCTV.
Is it because Flock Safety also markets to private businesses, whereas in Europe CCTV and ANPR are state-run? Or is it a cultural thing, eg. because Americans value freedom or prefer driving over the speed limit, and Flock may end that?
I can choose whether to carry a cell phone. I can control what data I share with big tech (very little here since I use free software and self-host everything).
I cannot do anything (that isn't illegal) if some bureaucrat decides to place a camera down my street to identify me or my car anytime I pass nearby.