The Walla Walla Police Department (WWPD)’s recent installation of 16 Flock Safety cameras across the city has seen a mixed reception amongst residents and experts. Cameras from the Atlanta-based company capture license plates and store data for law enforcement. WWPD hopes the data will help officers fight crime, but privacy concerns and Flock’s checkered history have raised questions. 

According to Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst for the American Civil Liberty Union Speech Privacy and Technology Project, this technology risks violating people’s privacy and civil liberties and has a chilling effect on people’s speech and behaviors.

Walla Walla PD’s administrative sergeant, Nick Loudermilk, spoke with The Wire about how WWPD will be using the system. 

“[The camera] does not have facial recognition. It doesn’t look for people in any type of way. So, gender, race, any of that type of stuff. It doesn’t see that or read that. It doesn’t take videos,” Loudermilk said. 

According to Loudermilk, the cameras only take still pictures and are not used for traffic enforcement like speed or red light cameras. 

Stanley describes the lack of privacy created by the Flock cameras, emphasizing what he sees as unnecessary surveillance.

“The reason that we think this technology is bad is that it violates the principle that the government and the police shouldn’t be watching everything that everybody does just because they might commit a crime,” Stanley said.

Flock Safety markets itself as an entity that helps to deter crime by providing data about where and when cars have been tagged on its camera system using artificial intelligence. 

As of Sept. 29, the cameras have detected 118,699 vehicles with 204 hotlist hits. While this technology might assist in the reduction of crime in the city, Loudermilk acknowledged that many people have expressed concerns about their privacy. 

“For lack of a better term, conspiracy theorists out there think that we’re sitting on our computer, watching everybody’s every move all day. And it’s not that,” Loudermilk said. 

According to the Privacy Act of 1974, Flock cameras can record data in public places where the law has upheld that there is no expectation of privacy. While some feel that these cameras have the ability to assist law enforcement, others say the greater issue is that all citizens are being tracked just as suspected criminals are. Detractors say there is no determination of guilt; everyone is recorded- everyone is reported. 

An ACLU White Paper on Flock Safety, written by Stanley, explores legal and ethical concerns with Flock. 

“Police departments appear to be coordinating with Flock in ways that are unseemly for agencies serving the public,” writes Stanley.

The ACLU paper compiled reports about police collaboration with Flock, which included police in Texas advocating for the private company in meetings with Homeowner Associations, and with other precincts. 

Multiple cases of misuse of Flock’s system have been publicly exposed. In Kansas,  a police chief used Flock license plate cameras 164 times to track an ex-girlfriend. Three people recently sued New Mexico City after they were subjected to police violence when the Flock system inaccurately alerted officers that the vehicles were involved in crime. Such incidents raise questions such as to who “police” the database and how information is protected and accessed by police officers. Sgt. Loudermilk addressed these concerns.  

“We don’t [require a search warrant]. The only requirement is we have to have a legitimate investigative purpose for entering information into the system, all users of Flock must complete the Flock training to be familiar with the software. One of the requirements of Flock that pertains to receiving information is the information must be independently verified,” Loudermilk said. 

Loudermilk also noted that users of the system had to complete training to be familiar with the software. Information that Flock gives officers will also have to be independently verified before action can be taken.

However, for Stanley, the checkered history of law enforcement surveillance in the US is cause for concern. 

“The fact is there is a long history in this country of law enforcement agencies investigating people and carrying out surveillance on their activities — not because they are suspected of crimes but because police don’t like their politics,” Stanley said.

WWPD has created a transparency page that updates as far as numbers go every day. The WWPD hopes to build trust with the community and demonstrate their responsible use of safety technology by making policies and usage statistics accessible to the public. The department is optimistic that this approach will enable them to balance effectively solving crimes and respecting individual privacy rights. 

“Flock uses the FBI’s watchlist and that watchlist is riddled with errors. There’s also a danger of mistakes, a number of people, including children, have found themselves with their cheeks against the pavement and a jittery police officer pointing a gun at them because this technology made errors,” Stanley said. 

While some have expressed fear that such surveillance technology could be used to monitor certain neighborhoods, which could lead to over-policing disproportionately, Sgt. Loudermilk said the camera locations were chosen with the help of crime data.

“When we chose the locations… we looked at crime statistics and crime data with our map, and they were strategically placed to try and solve crimes in areas that we’re seeing higher crimes,” Loudermilk said.

With numerous reassurances from WWPD amidst privacy and safety concerns from the public and experts, only time will tell how the cameras differ from others installed across the country.