A company executive with Flock Safety defended their Automated License Plate Reader technology as a vital tool for “precision policing” that helps solve crimes and recover missing persons, while opponents argue these AI-powered cameras threaten Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
The Joint Standing Committee on Government Organization met Sunday afternoon on the first of three days of legislative interim meetings at the State Capitol Building in Charleston to learn more about the cameras and how local governments were using them.
Concerns have been growing nationwide and in West Virginia about ALPR cameras and other forms of public cameras used by law enforcement, some of which can utilize facial recognition and artificial intelligence to identify alleged criminals.
ALPR systems photograph license plates and identify vehicles by make, model, color and other details. Flock Safety claims that data from ALPRs is only stored in the cloud for 30 days and all data collected is owned by the customer and not Flock. Cities such as Parkersburg and Clarksburg use some Flock technology.
Most recently, Monongalia County contracted with Flock Safety for 20 ALPR cameras for the sheriff’s department, while the City of Huntington signed a five-year contract with Flock for more than 40 ALPR cameras, live video cameras, gunshot detectors and other technology for $2.1 million.
Civil rights groups and civil libertarian groups, including the ACLU and the Institute for Justice, have raised concerns about the use of ALPRs and other AI-assisted surveillance for mass tracking of citizens, the possible misuse of data and lack of transparency and public accountability.
Kevin Kane, the director of government affairs for Flock Safety, told committee members Sunday that data collected through its technology is “100% owned by our customers,” such as law enforcement, homeowners associations and businesses.
“Really what we’re talking about is providing communities with, number one, ownership over their own data, control over how it’s used and policies that ensure that their community is utilizing this technology in a way that reflects their values,” Kane said. “So, really what we’re talking about is precision policing.
“By the numbers, today we’re looking at about 2,800 crimes solved every single day with Flock, and about 12,000 customers protected. And this reflects communities in just about every single state in the country,” he continued. “We’re talking about precision policing that can provide law enforcement with that critical first clue.”
Kane said Flock’s cameras do not use facial recognition programming, focusing on objective information that can be seen through the cameras themselves, such as clothing color. The data collected is not sold, and data sharing agreements are between law enforcement agencies themselves and must be opted into.
However, Alasdair Whitney, the legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice, detailed recent federal lawsuits in Norfolk, Va., and San Jose, Calif., claiming that ALPRs and other public camera systems capture far more innocent people than criminals, violating their Fourth Amendment rights protecting them from unreasonable searches and seizures.
“We are not anti-Flock, we are not anti-any vendor working in this space. … But what we are, are pro-Constitution and pro-accountability,”” Whitney said. “Calling them cameras in many ways is like calling an iPhone a telephone. These are networked, highly powered AI systems … that read far more than a (license) plate.”
Whitney said his core concern is that ALPR data shows “a way of life,” not just a day in the life, allowing government agents to infer religious affiliation, political associations, Second Amendment activities and medical visits.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that you do not surrender your privacy rights when you simply back out of your driveway or walk out of your front door every day,” Whitney said.
The Institute for Justice has proposed model legislation for states, called the Protecting Everyone’s Expectations of Privacy, or PEEPS, Act, to regulate historical location information collected by surveillance cameras, such as Flock’s. It would require a warrant for government agents to access ALPR data older than 24 hours. The legislation includes exceptions for emergencies, such as police pursuits and active kidnappings; and administrative uses, such as tolling and parking.
The nearly two-hour meeting was taken up with multiple questions from committee members channeling the concerns of a number of their constituents over the uses for ALPRs, privacy issues, security of the data collected and violations of constitutional rights.
“I have a lot of constituents that are upset about it, and they have a lot of questions, and so do I, because we want to make sure our community is safe and that our police officers and police departments have all the tools necessary,” said Del. Patrick Lucas, R-Cabell. “We also want to protect our Fourth Amendment rights, and we don’t want people coming into our city or people who already live in our city thinking they’re under surveillance.”
