What goes around comes around.
The Richardson City Council reviewed the Richardson Police Department's use of the Flock camera system. The council members' questions were revealing. Should Richardson keep the cameras? Should Richardson ditch the cameras? Should Richardson put stronger safeguards in place for the use of the cameras? Let's go through three of the clearest positions on Flock that emerged from the meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider sounded like a defense attorney asking leading questions of his friendly witness, Police Chief Gary Tittle. His questions aren't neutral requests for information. They are framed in a way that leads toward a pre-determined conclusion that Flock's benefits justify continued use. The clearest example is when Hutchenrider asks the police chief, "Is it a strong enough crime-fighting tool to continue it, as compared to the concerns that have been voiced tonight?" Chief Tittle answers, "Absolutely, without a doubt." Some of Hutchenrider's questions obscured rather than enlightened. He said, "This whole idea that somebody's going to be followed all the way from Point A to Point Z is not how the system is set up. Is that a true statement?" Chief Tittle answers, "You are correct, but let me be clear in the explanation. If a vehicle passes through camera A, it takes a photo of the license plate. If it passes through camera B, it takes a photo of the license plate. A detective can then run that search of that license plate number and identify that that vehicle did in fact go through camera A and camera B." Hutchenrider returns to the physical configuration of the cameras. "Okay. Yeah. Let me...That's so. So they're not daisy chained. It's just individual images that are then uploaded." This time, Chief Tittle simply agrees and leaves it at that. "Yes. Okay." Hutchenrider closes his case by drawing an analogy; "It's kind of like when if you go to your doctor and he says, 'I'm going to give you this medication. There are side effects.' I sort of see these these comments as these are the side effects that are real, could occur, et cetera, et cetera. But the benefit outweighs the side effects." Virtually none of Hutchenrider's questions tests the assumptions underlying his analogy. Medicine undergoes extensive studies. What studies has Flock undergone to prove its effectiveness? The evidence of effectiveness presented was a collection of investigative examples that the police chief explicitly acknowledges is incomplete. And that is evidence that Flock sometimes helps police investigate and solve crimes after they occur, not that Flock actually prevents crime or reduces the crime rate. Even if we grant Flock's helpfulness in solving crimes, what are the measurable harms relative to those benefits? Hutchenrider doesn't elicit answers to any questions that might cast doubt on Flock.
Council Member Dan Barrios takes a fact-finding approach. His questions are designed to find weaknesses. Exactly how many cameras are there in Richardson? Where? Who owns them? Who has logins? How are searches audited? He seeks to understand Flock's ability to distribute data. What provisions does Richardson's contract have to control unknown future capabilities, especially with advances in artificial intelligence. He makes an important distinction: the RPD is trustworthy, but that doesn't solve the Flock problem. For Barrios, the fact that Flock is a private, profit-making company makes it harder to trust that the public interest will remain foremost in its decisions. Barrios doesn't merely worry that Flock might do something bad someday. He points out that Flock controls the cameras Richardson paid for, that Richardson needs Flock to move them, and that the contract allows for changes in the information/capabilities Flock provides. He also says Flock is already experimenting with clothing identifiers. He pushes for greater transparency, asking that the agencies with which Richardson shares Flock data be listed on the police transparency page, along with audit information. Barrios is on the right track. He's asking the right questions. He has the right concerns. His conclusion is understandable. He admits regret voting for Flock camera deployment earlier and says, "The reason I cannot support any further growth of Flock within our city is not because of [the RPD], but it's just with the company and the fact that there aren't the protections in place from a federal level to protect us from that. And I don't trust a private company enough to put that much data and that much control in their hands."
We've now heard Hutchenrider make a case for keeping Flock. And Barrios explain why he lost confidence in Flock. That brings us to Council Member Jennifer Justice, who argues for keeping Flock but imposing meaningful safeguards. She appeared surprised to learn that RPD shares Flock data with 146 law enforcement agencies across North Texas. Barrios had already suggested putting the list of agencies on the police transparency page. Justice recognized that the number of agencies is a concern: the network of historical plate images can be used to reconstruct the movements of vehicles across the region. Justice doesn't say it, but the larger question follows: Is this mass surveillance—not just of lawbreakers but of everyone? Justice constructs the governance conditions she'd need to have in place to alleviate her concerns (and her community's). In a series of controls-and-compliance questions, she doesn't say that officers shouldn't have access to Flock. She says, essentially: If we're going to give officers this powerful investigative tool, how can we ensure that they don't use it improperly, and how do we know those controls are actually working? Justice doesn't say, shut it down; she asks for more transparency. Where Hutchenrider was willing to accept at face value the Police Chief's assertion of the effectiveness of Flock, Justice says, in effect, show us the evidence. She also specifically proposes: publishing the policy; making audit certifications public; and putting that information on the City's transparency website. She credits Council Member Joe Corcoran for originating some of these reforms, particularly the idea of making audit information public. Her position is more sophisticated than simply being "pro-Flock" or "anti-Flock." And compared with Barrios, there's a philosophical difference: Barrios asks whether the structure itself can ever be trusted. Justice asks what controls could make it trustworthy enough.
What was the outcome of all this discussion? The meeting did not end with an action to discontinue Flock, reduce the number of cameras, or stop sharing data. Instead, the immediate institutional response was: Keep the system, but strengthen the governance around it. City Manager Don Magner summarized six staff follow-up actions he took away from the discussion.
- Establish clearer requirements for other agencies' access to Richardson's Flock data.
- Identify the municipalities/agencies that have access and disclose them publicly.
- Review and refresh the existing Flock audit policy.
- Publish the updated audit policy online.
- Publish audit results online on a regular basis.
- Explore getting written confirmation from Flock that data has actually been permanently deleted.
There were things asked for that didn't make Magner's list. For example, Mayor Amir Omar asked for more granular statistics on cases solved with Flock, and said he wanted to understand Richardson's legal recourse if Flock ever sold or otherwise misused the data. Also discussed was the question about what happens if neighboring agencies retain Richardson data independently. And creating a public mechanism for notifying residents when Flock's capabilities and/or policies change.
All told, Flock lives on, its wings not even slightly clipped. Richardson isn't reducing the number of cameras or ending data sharing. Instead, the immediate response is to strengthen the paperwork, auditing and transparency surrounding a surveillance system that remains firmly in place. The council has not decided that Flock is too intrusive. It has decided that the public needs to be better informed about how this intrusive surveillance system is being used.
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"Audit the watchers.
Publish the rules and the proof.
Trust needs receipts."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment