Flock Cameras: Public Safety, Privacy, and Public Trust
Technology can be an important public-safety tool. If someone you love were missing, you would want law enforcement to have every reasonable resource available to help bring them home. Tools such as drones and automated license plate readers can help officers locate missing people, stolen vehicles, and individuals wanted for serious crimes.
But the more powerful technology becomes, the more important oversight becomes.
My concern with the Flock camera system is not simply that the technology exists. It is that communities are adopting technology faster than we are answering important questions about how the information can be accessed, searched, shared, and misused.
There have been cases around the country in which law-enforcement personnel have improperly used automated license plate reader systems for personal purposes. There are also legitimate questions about how information can be shared between agencies and whether existing policies, contracts, and auditing systems provide adequate protection for residents.
When Camarillo considered the Flock system, I do not believe enough attention was given to those possibilities. Before we continue relying on a system capable of tracking vehicles throughout our community, residents deserve clear answers.
Who can search the system? Under what circumstances? Is every search audited? Can another agency ask a local officer to conduct a search on its behalf? What happens when the rules are violated? Who is responsible if information is improperly accessed? And what protections are written into the City's agreements?
These are not anti-police questions. They are questions responsible governments should ask whenever powerful technology is placed in the hands of public institutions.
For that reason, I would support temporarily pausing Camarillo's use of the Flock system while the City conducts a public review of its policies, contracts, access controls, auditing procedures, privacy protections, data-sharing practices, and liability provisions.
During that pause, if technically and contractually feasible, I would support physically covering the cameras so that they cannot capture images or data, rather than immediately removing equipment taxpayers have already purchased. Doing so would provide residents with a visible assurance that the cameras are not operating while preserving the City's investment if adequate safeguards can ultimately be established.
If the cameras cannot be reliably prevented from collecting information during that pause, then I would support removing them. A pause should mean a pause. Residents should not have to wonder whether information is still being collected while the City says the system is under review.
Once those questions have been addressed, the issue should return to the City Council for a public discussion and vote. Residents should have a meaningful opportunity to weigh the public-safety benefits against the privacy and accountability concerns before a decision is made about whether—and under what safeguards—the system should resume operation.
Public safety and privacy do not have to be opposing choices. We should be able to give law enforcement effective tools to find missing people and solve crimes while still demanding strong safeguards against misuse.