Trending
While not as controversial as data centers, Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras are not too far behind.
Originally sold to communities as a way to make it easier to catch criminals, instances of abuse and a lack of transparency and public accountability have been reported. But even worse, many people are tired of being watched with their movement tracked and fear the lack of privacy.
The high-speed stationary cameras take photos of every vehicle that passes them -- which can be thousands a day.
Flock doesn't just sell the cameras to law enforcement. If you've got the money, school districts, universities, homeowner associations, parking lot/deck operators, apartment complexes, companies and stores can use them.
About 400 entities in Ohio use the cameras, including several in the Mahoning Valley. Austintown is the latest community to sign on to use Flock, despite the growing controversy. They will join other local communities, including Youngstown, Warren, Boardman, Canfield Township, Cortland, Girard, Liberty, Niles and North Jackson.
Nationwide, more than 120,000 Flock Safety cameras are installed in about 7,000 communities and take photos of about 20 billion vehicles every month. The cameras are part of a surveillance network that some say is Big Brother's bigger brother.
There have been recent reports about police officers -- including in Ohio -- improperly using Flock data for personal reasons or sharing with federal agencies for immigration enforcement.
In response to calls, emails and face-to-face conversations with constituents concerned about Flock cameras, state Sen. Al Cutrona, R-Canfield, is putting the finishing touches on a bill he said will ensure information collected by the cameras is used correctly.
"We need parameters and guardrails as the use of the cameras has exploded in the past year," Cutrona said. "They are everywhere. The concern is of privacy first and foremost, and how this information is utilized and being guarded. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
The bill should be introduced next week, Cutrona said.
The bill would not permit any government agency in Ohio that uses Flock cameras to share data with an outside party or for such an entity to solicit the data. Also, the data could only be saved in the system for up to 10 days before being automatically deleted.
Facing intense backlash, Flock announced last week that it would shorten the recommended default retention time from 30 days to seven days, but its customers can still set their own periods in coordination with state or local policies or laws. It is also requiring agencies that use the cameras to use an "audit assistance" feature to spot potential improper activity.
Cutrona said of the retention reduction: "There is no law that requires them to do that. You might agree to do it today and then change your mind tomorrow."
While Cutrona said Flock can be a useful tool for solving crimes, it should not infringe on the Fourth Amendment right to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and the need to show probable cause.
"There needs to be privacy and it needs to be used by law enforcement to do their jobs within the parameters of the law," Cutrona said. "If you run a business like Flock, you have to value privacy and not be sold to the highest bidder."
The Flock technology, Cutrona said, could easily be used to extrapolate information about a person, such as where they shop, where they eat and where they are.
Cutrona said: "You can take license plates and create a mosaic of where this person goes and then sell it to a company to target you for their business. It's a breach of our right to privacy."
Under Cutrona's proposal, anyone caught using Flock cameras or its collected data for personal use, rather than as part of an active law enforcement case, could be charged with a fourth-degree felony. That is punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Cutrona said it will be challenging to get his legislation approved by the end of this session, which ends Dec. 31, particularly because the General Assembly won't meet until after the Nov. 3 election.
"There's a lot of bipartisan support and agreement that this is a concern," Cutrona said. "We have enough time to get this through a lame-duck session. Even if we don't get it to the finish line in this General Assembly, which is a very real possibility, this will be one of the first bills I will introduce next year."
Cutrona added: "This is an issue across the country. The American people want it addressed and Ohioans want it addressed. It is overwhelmingly supported by people who believe we have to do something. I'm trying to be fair to value privacy and balance it with law enforcement."
David Skolnick covers politics for the Tribune Chronicle and The Vindicator.