More Police Officers Fired, Investigated, or Arrested for Misusing Flock Camera Systems (wtoc.com) 24
In Georgia the Savannah Police Department "terminated four sworn officers and two civilian employees following an internal investigation into misuse of the department's Flock Safety License Plate Reader system," according to a local news report:
All six cases are also under independent criminal investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation... Investigators found that employees were running searches on personal acquaintances and family members. One officer was found to have given someone from an outside law enforcement agency access to SPD's Flock Safety system, which they weren't authorized to do.
Elsewhere ABC News reports that a female North Carolina police officer was arrested Wednesday "for allegedly using Flock license plate readers to track her boyfriend's ex-wife, according to police..." The officer is accused of accessing the system for personal use 31 different times, including at least twice when she was off-duty, and listing most of the lookups as motor vehicle infractions. [Police chief Ron] Campurciani "added that the department is looking at 10 other potential misuse cases and said three 'look like they could be problematic.'"
And an Ohio news station reports a police officer who recently resigned "while under internal investigation repeatedly used the Flock license plate reader system to search a vehicle registered to someone investigators identified as his likely domestic partner."
Meanwhile, 404 Media reported this week that an Iowa county's usage police specifically tells police officers — in all capital letters — not to tell occupants of a vehicle that an automated license plate reader was used for a traffic stop. It also instructs officers to not even mention the use of the ALPR technology in their reports "unless absolutely necessary," according to information they'd obtained from a public records request," suggesting they instead they call the cameras "county resources": It is not just local police in small communities who are creating policies designed to obfuscate Flock usage. Earlier this year, we reported that police in multiple states were being told to be "as vague as permissible" about why they were using Flock because their searches could be obtained using public records requests, and that warning was being shared by the FBI and Department of Justice...
In the [Iowa county] public records request, Sheriff Don Phillips said "there is no need" to tell people about the use of Flock... "because the information is verified by the deputy running the license plate. It is common practice for law enforcement to refrain from disclosing investigative methods and sources to prevent criminals from learning how to circumvent them."
Elsewhere ABC News reports that a female North Carolina police officer was arrested Wednesday "for allegedly using Flock license plate readers to track her boyfriend's ex-wife, according to police..." The officer is accused of accessing the system for personal use 31 different times, including at least twice when she was off-duty, and listing most of the lookups as motor vehicle infractions. [Police chief Ron] Campurciani "added that the department is looking at 10 other potential misuse cases and said three 'look like they could be problematic.'"
And an Ohio news station reports a police officer who recently resigned "while under internal investigation repeatedly used the Flock license plate reader system to search a vehicle registered to someone investigators identified as his likely domestic partner."
Meanwhile, 404 Media reported this week that an Iowa county's usage police specifically tells police officers — in all capital letters — not to tell occupants of a vehicle that an automated license plate reader was used for a traffic stop. It also instructs officers to not even mention the use of the ALPR technology in their reports "unless absolutely necessary," according to information they'd obtained from a public records request," suggesting they instead they call the cameras "county resources": It is not just local police in small communities who are creating policies designed to obfuscate Flock usage. Earlier this year, we reported that police in multiple states were being told to be "as vague as permissible" about why they were using Flock because their searches could be obtained using public records requests, and that warning was being shared by the FBI and Department of Justice...
In the [Iowa county] public records request, Sheriff Don Phillips said "there is no need" to tell people about the use of Flock... "because the information is verified by the deputy running the license plate. It is common practice for law enforcement to refrain from disclosing investigative methods and sources to prevent criminals from learning how to circumvent them."
Welp (Score:2)
Deliberately obfuscating or misleading the public about the mass surveillance abuse is sure to go a long way towards rebuilding all that public trust lost from all those police shootings.
Re:Welp (Score:5, Informative)
Why does Flock have to be honest to the public in any way? Are they under oath? Genuinely asking?
I know reading comprehension is hard, but even the summary has specific examples of police creating a policy to hide their use of Flock cameras. We're not talking about Flock being honest to the public. We're talking about police behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
why are you unable to spot the subject in simple sentences? are you high?
Re: (Score:2)
We should fund the police better so they can get more training!
Re: (Score:1)
Now, if there only was a rational voter majority...
But but but... (Score:2)
...Flock cameras are helping us find lost dogs!
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong company. That was a Ring camera advertisement. It was just an easy step for people to see how the same system could be used to track down people, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Right company. Law enforcement always responds to abuses like this with specious counterbalancing arguments.
I fear my idiot neighbors w/ Ring more than police (Score:3)
Wrong company. That was a Ring camera advertisement. It was just an easy step for people to see how the same system could be used to track down people, too.
Flock is bad, but for me, the problem is hypothetical. Additionally, I was actually happy to see that they're doing something to hold officers accountable for misusing it. It is a simple technology problem. Audit all uses and make the officer justify each one. It won't solve all problems, but it will discourage abuse as well as make it easier to determine if someone abused the system. That said, I am not sure what value Flock provides to me as a law-abiding citizen. Just how many threats to me has it
Re: (Score:2)
The aspect you're overlooking is that Ring cameras are, for the most part, only found in residential areas. Even if you do make it a habit of driving through random neighborhoods, generally they're only able to resolve enough detail to determine that a $COLOR car drove by.
Every once in awhile some kids cut through my lawn and my camera records them (and no, I couldn't care less that they're walking on my lawn). Could I pick those kids out of a line up if the situation arose? Probably not. The footage is
Equality! (Score:2)
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Now watch the "fired" officers get hired the next day in another jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Amusing. Immediately bumped to +5 by the same bunch of knuckleheads that would condemn anyone pointing out that public sector unions are the reason for this clown world nonsense as a Nazi.
Just another reminder (Score:3)
Whatever data is collected, it will get used against people. Whether legal, illegal or secret with no legal controls on it. The only protection is to outlaw the data-collection itself and fit that ban with personal (!) penalties for violators.
And to nobody' surprise, (Score:2)
the Orwellian surveillance designed to "protect us" is being used outside the planned scope. Just as expected and intended: anything that looks too good to be true, fails the moment humans touch it.
On the same page as this story (Score:3)
Remember these are just the ones we caught (Score:2)
How to fix this issue: (Score:2)
1) Do not give the police access to a system that clearly invades privacy of the innocent far too often.
2) Charge the police $1,000 per use of said system with all the money used to pay for legal aid to the accused.
3) Set it up to automatically inform the people that were tracked exactly 7 days after the cops tracked them.
Any of these methods will solve the problem, but the police will never accept any of these clear solutions.