This is the best illustration I’ve seen of why federal action will be needed.
At a 9 a.m. Harris County Commissioners Court meeting Aug. 17, dozens of Houston residents filed into the courtroom.
The commissioners were meeting to review the region’s budget, but residents instead came to rally against the county’s use of artificial intelligence cameras, many citing privacy issues.
“You promised to protect us, but we see the abuse has come and there’s still no protections. We need to eliminate Flock,” said Christopher Rivera, a member of the Texas Civil Rights Project, to applause from the crowd.
Harris County joins numerous counties across the state grappling with community backlash against Flock cameras. Government officials said they understand the community’s concerns, but backing out of contracts with AI camera companies is much more complicated than many think since the agreements affect several agencies and jurisdictions.
[…]
Nationally, Flock Safety estimates some 5,000 law enforcement agencies and 6,000 communities use its surveillance products. Advocacy groups that track camera positions across Texas estimate there are more than 13,000 cameras in Texas. The Harris County sheriff’s office manages 20 Flock Safety license plate reader networks with a combined 480 cameras, estimated to be the most in the state.
Many police departments consider Flock an invaluable crime-fighting tool. Opponents — including privacy, civil liberty and immigrant rights advocates — argue the system’s capacity for abuse is well established.
However, government officials have little power to remove Flock from their region, as most of it isn’t purchased by them or law enforcement. Retailers and homeowners associations buy their own cameras and then choose whether to share footage with law enforcement. According to HCSO, most camera networks are owned by municipal utility districts, neighborhood associations and similar organizations, with the sheriff’s office as the system administrator.
The mixture of contracts means county officials will have to somehow find every person who owns a system and get them to agree to break their contract with Flock, a daunting task.
“I share residents’ concerns about Flock and my office is working with county partners and stakeholders on a path forward,” said Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis. “Public safety and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Residents deserve both, and county policy should protect both.”
Despite the challenge, some government officials are taking action to ease concerns around AI cameras.
U.S. Rep. Keith Self, a McKinney Republican, last month proposed legislation to require federal agencies to obtain warrants before accessing Flock camera data. Guadalupe County and more recently Hood County have formally ended their contracts with Flock. Cities like Bandera, Lago Vista and Magnolia have also dropped Flock this summer. Austin and San Marcos have moved on from the cameras, and Conroe residents are pushing for a November ballot measure to remove them, with the League City mayor floating a similar idea.
“These cameras were constantly scanning and recording regular folks just going about their day. That kind of permanent, warrantless tracking doesn’t belong in a free society,” said Hood County Constable John Shirley in a post on social media.
While government officials try to ease public concerns, some Texans are taking matters into their own hands.
The Dallas Police Department began formally tracking incidents of vandalism to Flock cameras earlier this year and has logged roughly 25 incidents in five months, mostly camera poles being cut down. In Houston, there have been incidents of camera lenses being spray-painted or camera poles being cut down. Burnett County removed all its cameras after two vandalism incidents.
[…]
Flock responded to the mounting pressure in the past couple of weeks by shortening default data retention from 30 to 7 days, requiring a case code before any search, and adding an “Evidence Mode” for active investigations. However, Dallas police plan to keep Flock Safety license-plate camera data for a full year, saying they need more time for investigations and showing their growing commitment to the surveillance system.
The Texas Department of Public Safety approved a $26 million contract with Flock last year to surveil state roads and support Operation Lone Star, the state’s multibillion-dollar effort to curb unauthorized immigration and fortify the border.
If government officials want to end their contract with Flock, ACLU Georgia reported earlier this year that the company changed contracts making it harder to get out of these deals.
The new terms also give Flock a perpetual right to use customer data even after a government has terminated its relationship with no expiration date.
See here for some background. League City will have a non-binding vote on Flock cameras, but Conroe won’t have one. I’m sure other places will try. And I wonder what it would mean if the Harris County Sheriff’s Office stopped being the sysadmin for all those other camera networks.
This is why I say federal legislation is needed. I wouldn’t trust Rep. Self to be the point person for this, but requiring federal agencies to get warrants first is a good start. Other obvious items to include:
– Strong data privacy protection, in which Flock and other providers like them are held liable in the event of data leaks.
– Mandating that data retention is set at seven days max.
– Requiring full audit trails on all search activities done by law enforcement, to discourage the many instances of stalking and other off-book behavior. It should not only be a crime to misuse the camera data, the responsibility for monitoring and preventing such activity should fall on the law enforcement agencies, with stiff penalties for failure to comply.
– Forbidding contracts longer than, say, two years, and mandating an easy exit provision for any entity that has a change of heart.
I’m sure there are other items for the list, but again, that’s a good start. Having strong and enforceable limits on these cameras and their use would go a long way towards reducing the justifiable anger and apprehension about them. In the meantime, make all the noise you want in the direction of your elected officials about this, but please don’t go vigilante on the cameras. Among other things, Flock is onto you for this kind of activity. Don’t take chances.
Stephen Simpson/Texas Tribune, this is a doozie: “The mixture of contracts means county officials will have to somehow find every person who owns a system and get them to agree to break their contract with Flock.”
First, a false (as well as ridiculous) assumption: “will have to somehow find every person who owns a system”. Find them? The sheriff already has a relationship with them. Their names and contact information should be in their files!
Second, a false dichotomy: do nothing or “get them to agree to break their contract”. This information–who is sharing their flock cameras the sheriff–should be public information. Make it public, and let citizens “get them to…break their contract”.