By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Dayton, Ohio has resorted to covering its Flock automated license plate reader cameras with black trash bags, a measure taken due to uncertainty regarding their operational status and the city’s authority to remove them. This action follows months of public outcry, a data-sharing scandal involving immigration enforcement, and an extensive audit into the cameras’ usage. Similar to Evanston, Illinois, Dayton has employed this temporary solution to obscure the cameras while seeking a definitive resolution, highlighting a broader trend of cities grappling with contractual limitations and unilateral decision-making regarding Flock surveillance technology.
Read the original article here
Cities are increasingly opting for a rather low-tech solution to a high-tech problem: covering Flock cameras with trash bags. This seemingly simple act is a visible manifestation of growing public distrust and legal entanglements surrounding automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and the companies that provide them. The core of the issue lies in how these powerful surveillance tools are being used, managed, and in some cases, seemingly misused, leading to a backlash from communities and a desire to blind the watchful eyes of these cameras.
In the city of Dayton, Ohio, for instance, Flock ALPR cameras have been shrouded in black trash bags. This action stems from a complex web of concerns, including uncertainty about whether the cameras are even operational, and a bureaucratic fog surrounding the city’s authority to remove them. This move follows a period of significant resident outcry, exacerbated by a scandal involving Flock camera data being shared with federal agencies for immigration enforcement, seemingly by accident. The situation was further complicated by a substantial audit into the cameras’ usage, highlighting a lack of transparency and accountability.
The underlying sentiment driving these actions often points to a fundamental concern about privacy and the potential for overreach. Many see Flock cameras as more than just tools for public safety; they are perceived as intrusive surveillance networks with AI capabilities that scan license plates and potentially faces. This data, linked to a privatized database, can be filtered and searched, raising alarms about its potential for tracking individuals’ movements and activities, even for purposes unrelated to crime. The idea that this technology could be used to flag protest attendees or investigate immigration violations, as suggested in some observations, further fuels this apprehension.
Beyond the immediate practicalities of covering the cameras, there’s a deeper legal and ethical debate at play. The question of public records laws, often referred to as Sunshine Laws or FOIA requests, looms large. The legality of a private company storing and maintaining government public records in the form of video footage recorded by these cameras presents a significant legal gray area. Public agencies can become vulnerable to costly lawsuits if they fail to comply with these open records requests, a point underscored by instances where smaller cities have faced bankruptcy due to non-compliance. This has made other government agencies highly aware of the need for absolute adherence to public records regulations.
The issue of data sharing and privacy is a recurring theme. Reports of Flock camera data being shared with federal agencies, even if inadvertently, have significantly eroded trust. Coupled with the company’s alleged practice of sharing plate data with federal agencies even after cities requested their removal, it paints a picture of a company that may not be fully respecting local regulations or public sentiment. The assertion that the company simply reinstalled cameras after being told to remove them, as one observation suggests, further ignites frustration and leads to the makeshift “trash bag solution.”
The effectiveness of these cameras, and the very necessity of their widespread deployment, is also being questioned. The argument is often made that there is no discernible public benefit to mass, untargeted surveillance. The idea that these systems are designed for mass surveillance rather than targeted public safety efforts is a central tenet of the opposition. This leads to the question of who truly benefits from these networks and whether they are ultimately serving the public good or other, more clandestine, interests.
Furthermore, there’s a burgeoning desire among some to see more direct action taken against these cameras. While trash bag coverings are a symbolic protest, some express a desire for more definitive solutions, ranging from paintball gun and laser attacks to outright destruction. This sentiment, while not condoning illegal activity, reflects the depth of frustration and the perceived lack of responsiveness from both the companies and, in some cases, the local governments that permit the cameras’ installation. The argument for destruction is often framed as a necessary step when a system is perceived as inherently harmful or invasive.
The proprietary nature of the technology and the contracts surrounding it also present challenges. While some believe Flock still owns the hardware they provide, leasing it to municipalities, the specifics of these agreements and the process for removal and return of equipment can be complex. This complexity can contribute to the inertia seen in some cities, where the question of who is responsible for taking down the cameras, and how, becomes a point of contention.
Ultimately, the act of covering Flock cameras with trash bags is more than just a peculiar urban sight; it’s a symptom of a larger societal conversation about surveillance, privacy, and the balance of power between technology companies, government agencies, and the public. It signifies a demand for transparency, accountability, and a reassessment of how technology is deployed in our communities, prompting questions about whether these pervasive digital eyes are truly serving us or simply watching us.