|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Several massive security cameras were pointed at the Palo Alto City Council on Monday night.
Being made of cardboard and tape, they weren’t exactly operable, nor did they resemble Flock Safety’s license plate cameras. But the point was to emphasize the impact that surveillance has on the public atmosphere, according to Dan Merget, who was wearing one of the camera headpieces.
“The Big Brother surveillance scares the hell out of me,” he said in an interview. “Given how dishonest companies like Flock are, I don’t think (the license plate cameras) are safe to have here.”
Merget is an advocate with Safety Over Surveillance (SOS), a coalition of 14 local organizations that is urging the city to abandon Flock Safety’s license plate cameras amid concerns over data security and mass surveillance.
Others dressed in red robes reminiscent of the dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood, and multiple speakers during the public comment period referenced the book’s themes in relation to the Trump administration’s crackdown on reproductive rights. And more than 100 others flooded the chambers to support the demonstration.
“Palo Alto pays Flock to create a vast, detailed, AI-driven mass surveillance database that stores the movements of every resident and visitor,” the SOS website states. “Once collected, this personal data can be accessed by those in power without a warrant. Local data policies offer no protection.”
The council discussion on Monday night focused on approving the scope of an independent audit of Palo Alto’s automated license plate readers (ALPRs), conducted by the OIR Group. But over the course of the discussion, several council members indicated that they would like to see the city terminate its contract with Flock and to take near-term measures such as covering up the cameras while the audit is being conducted.
While members of SOS celebrated the audit, they urged the council to go further and end the deal with Flock, which has installed 30 cameras around Palo Alto.
Unlike in other communities, Palo Alto’s ALPRs have not been searched in relation to reproductive rights or immigration enforcement, but the fear remains among many members of the public. Police officers in other states have been accused of using the technology to stalk ex-girlfriends, investigate protesters and track people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
This publication previously reported that thousands of out-of-state law enforcement agencies were able to search cameras in Palo Alto despite local regulations and state law — all without the police department’s knowledge.
Tim MacKenzie, another member of SOS, said the installation of ALPRs erodes public trust and puts everyday people under automatic suspicion. The issue is not just Flock, but the technology itself, he said.
“No tool is more valuable than the public trust,” MacKenzie told the council. “Everything in policing is downstream of that bedrock foundation.”
Palo Alto officials have become increasingly critical of Flock in light of local violations and misuse of the technology across the country. Councilmember Ed Lauing voiced his distrust of the Flock CEO, Garrett Langley, and Councilmember Keith Reckdahl suggested that simply switching vendors may not alleviate the data-sharing concerns.
“We are unlikely to retain Flock,” added Mayor Vicki Veenker. “That’s clearly where we seem to be leaning.”
Councilmember Pat Burt disagreed with Veenker’s characterization that the council is ready to end the agreement, but said he supported holding another discussion to consider a range of options, including new protective measures that further limit data sharing or and contract termination.
Nearby jurisdictions have had mixed responses to Flock. Mountain View severed ties with Flock earlier this year, while East Palo Alto doubled down on its contract. Stanford University recently switched from Flock to Genetec Cloudrunner, which transfers the camera data to Stanford to store locally without third-party access.
Councilmembers briefly weighed the benefits of switching to another vendor, like Motorola, or doing what Stanford did with a local data server. Reckdahl said the issue with the latter is it could prevent the ability of local police to share information with neighboring cities and help solve crimes that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
The scope of the audit is intended to answer some of these questions, but it will mostly focus on local policies and use of ALPR technology. Representatives with the OIR Group, which has been auditing the Palo Alto Police Department for nearly two decades, said the audit will take 90 days, but council members questioned whether there was anything the city could do in the meantime.
The solution for some advocates is to cover the cameras or otherwise disable them while the audit is ongoing. Henry Etzkowitz, who is running for City Council this fall, earned chuckles from the audience when he suggested the city hold a contest for who can best destroy the cameras with a sledgehammer.
For now, the council directed the OIR Group and staff to focus on alternative vendors and return with their findings sooner than the 90-day audit period. Some members of the council were more eager than others to make a decision on the Flock contract, completed audit or otherwise.
“The wolf is in the hen house, and we’re wondering if we need to build a better gate,” said Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims.
