Editor:
The MLT Police Department has asked the city council to approve the purchase of a Flock camera system — a $54K camera system that takes pictures of license plates, car make/model and bumper stickers; spending money during lean times to surveil primarily innocent people. Data is stored in the cloud for a month and could be used to track your movements around the city/country. Approximately 3,000 other agencies have this system — it is a network. Privacy is a fundamental right for all of us, as is safety. This purchase would erode privacy rights AND safety for many. I recommend that folks do their own research, including reading the white paper that the ACLU authored on this issue (available online). As a city resident and American citizen I am concerned that we are about to opt into a system of mass surveillance. This is not OK and we must share our concerns.
As an ally for undocumented people, I also have concerns regarding data sharing with ICE. The IRS now shares data with Homeland Security, so don’t think it couldn’t happen with this data. All humans deserve the same human rights regardless of immigration status, and one of those rights is personal safety –installation of Flock systems infringes upon this human right for this population (and others).
Please contact our city council to voice your opposition to this purchase or attend the June 5 council meeting to make a public comment on record.
Sam Doyle
Mountlake Terrace
With all the hateful activity in this trump admin, our city does not need to join in. Western Washington State needs to stay compassionate to those who need assistance for a better life.
If you have nothing to hide, then who cares ? We are a public society, not a private one. The real question is, would this system help public society be a safer place to live or not for everyone, at a cost that makes it worth it or not…. I don’t see it as a privacy issue, we all live here together, hopefully, legally.
More thoughts on surveillance: If you already got your REAL ID, an idea conjured up as a result of the PATRIOT ACT, another national surveillance action following the New York Twin Towers attack + Pentagon plane crashes, then you have become linked in with Homeland Security. The plan then and one which will continue until fruition, is to have every state’s DMV connected to Homeland Security! It started with a DMV desired biometric on our driver’s license which was considered by many to be unnecessary “surveillance” at the time (1996 or so?). Goodness! Look how far we’ve come! We lost “privacy” a long time ago.
The concern many of us have isn’t about hiding anything—it’s about the precedent of creating a surveillance infrastructure that records everyone’s movements, regardless of suspicion. History shows that such data can be used in harmful and unintended ways. Public safety and civil liberties are not in conflict—we can pursue both, but it requires transparency, accountability, and tools that are narrowly focused and proven to work. Flock hasn’t met that bar.
I say this respectfully, but this comment is ignorant. This is a lame defense of those who seek to install systems of control over ordinary, law-abiding citizens.
Think about it another way. Maybe you like the people who are currently in control of systems like this.
What about when someone you don’t agree with or trust is elected? What about when (not if) their data is breached by foreign or domestic hackers? On that note, what is this data being used for by the company that provides the service? Do you trust their intentions and belief that you “did nothing wrong”?
Liberty and due process are core rights of being an American, and a system like this isn’t just a violation of privacy but a tool that can EASILY be used by people acting in bad faith in the future.
I do not find it sufficient to simply trust that this tool will only be used for good, when it can easily be used against Americans with one “bad” person. All it takes is one security breach by those acting in bad faith for financial or political reasons for this system to turned against law-abiding citizens.
You may not feel this way, but I am a law abiding citizen and business owner. My daily commute, type of car I drive, and scans of my face are all things I do not wish to share with data aggregators and government officials.
Thank you for your comment. I completely agree—this is a moment where our city can stand for compassion and care over fear-based approaches. We have a strong, inclusive community here in Mountlake Terrace, and opting into a national surveillance network undermines the safety and trust so many of our neighbors rely on, especially those most vulnerable under the current federal administration. Let’s lead with empathy, not infrastructure that puts people at risk.
Typical democratic anti police BS !!! This system flag’s stolen cars, it flag’s wanted felon’s associated with license plates it finds missing people it is a great system and if you’re driving around as a law abiding citizen living your life it doesn’t care about you !!!! Enough with letting the criminals have all the rights !!!!
Being anti police state and anti surveillance of American citizens every moment of the day is not anti-police.
In theory, if this system did ONLY what the company behind it claims it did, I may even agree with you.
However, and I’m sure you are aware of this, that isn’t the world we live in today. Are you under the impression that tech companies only use all that data they collect on us for only good purposes? Unless you believe that every decision made by government officials is flawless (it isn’t), and an innocent person has never been arrested or convicted (they have) then blanketing our town with cameras connected to a national Ai data aggregator is not a good idea.
Here are some stories regarding this exact system, from the same company, in other communities in the US:
License plate cover leads to traffic stop mishap (koat.com)
https://www.koat.com/article/espanola-police-license-plate-stolen-cover-traffic-stop/45361740
Kechi police lieutenant’s arrest puts Flock technology under scrutiny (kwch.com)
https://www.kwch.com/2022/11/04/kechi-police-lieutenants-arrest-puts-flock-technology-under-scrutiny/
Black family who was removed from car at gunpoint and handcuffed by police receives $1.9M settlement due to false positive on stolen car from Flock camera (nbcnews.com)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-family-was-removed-car-gunpoint-handcuffed-aurora-colorado-polic-rcna137444
That last one looks expensive for tax payers…time to pick a side brother.
I support police presence in our community, and am very grateful for their commitment in keeping us all safe. I think we need a strong police department (which we have), appropriate consequences for folks found guilty of crimes and that we need to evaluate any tools such as this very carefully.
There are other ways of shoring up safety in our community, and installing a mass surveillance tool (which surveils *everyone*, not just criminals) isn’t an approach that I support or that is best for our community. Let’s look/talk about preventing crime before it occurs, as one example. Even as a law-abiding American citizen, I oppose this tool for the many reasons discussed so far. We need to support other paths to community safety.
Privacy issues aside for a moment, there is also concern about the actual *efficacy* of the program. Does Flock actually DELIVER measurable results with regards to crime reduction? I haven’t seen proof that it does when I reviewed the presentation given in the council meeting (PDF available online from Flock). Can Lynnwood point to a measurable decrease in crime that is directly attributable to installing this system?
Of note from Mercer Island’s discussion about Flock (https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/11/09/mercer-island-debates-surveillance-cameras/) –“Councilmember Ted Weinberg asked about the efficacy of this system, stating “I’d be curious to know whether those jurisdictions observed a measurable decrease in crime.” The Flock Safety representative dodged the question, instead describing how reliable the cameras are.”
Flock *reports* that their cameras lead to a 10% decrease in crime, but there are issues with regards to how that statistic was obtained/that study was done–most notably that the study was performed BY Flock, not an independent company. (https://www.404media.co/researcher-who-oversaw-flock-surveillance-study-now-has-concerns-about-it/).