Mounting Rejection of License Plate Readers Signals Trouble for Surveillance Tech Company Flock
Recent developments across the country are casting a harsh light on Flock Safety, a leading provider of automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology. Cities and states are increasingly terminating contracts wiht the company, raising serious questions about privacy, data security, and the effectiveness of mass surveillance as a crime deterrent. This growing resistance directly challenges the ambitious claims made by Flock’s founder, Garrett Langley, regarding the potential to “end crime” through widespread surveillance.
Illinois and Texas Lead the Way in Terminating Contracts
The backlash against flock isn’t limited to states known for strong privacy protections. It’s gaining momentum nationwide.
* Illinois: Oak Park and, more recently, Evanston have both cancelled their contracts with Flock. Evanston’s decision followed a state audit revealing meaningful concerns. Specifically, the audit highlighted Flock’s failure to establish clear protocols for local compliance while allowing access to federal users.
* Texas: Austin, Texas – the state where initial concerns about Flock’s misuse surfaced - has also seen a accomplished campaign to end its contract with the company. This victory was driven by community organizers who opposed the city’s partnership with flock.
These terminations are significant. They demonstrate a growing unwillingness among municipalities to accept the potential privacy violations inherent in ALPR technology.
the Problem with Flock’s Promises
Langley’s vision of a crime-free society powered by mass surveillance rings hollow when his company struggles to adhere to basic legal and ethical standards. It’s a classic case of a salesman overpromising and underdelivering.
Consider these points:
* Legal Violations: Flock’s technology was previously implicated in attempts to locate individuals potentially seeking abortion care in Texas,sparking outrage and raising serious legal questions.
* data Security Concerns: The Illinois audit revealed a lack of proper data access controls, raising concerns about potential misuse of sensitive details.
* Exaggerated Claims: The idea that surveillance technology can “end crime” is a misleading oversimplification. it preys on anxieties about safety while ignoring the complex root causes of criminal activity.
A System Built on Fear and Inequality
Flock’s business model relies on exploiting a pervasive, and often inaccurate, belief that crime rates are higher than they actually are. It also implicitly caters to a segment of society that views civil liberties as privileges reserved for the wealthy and powerful.
This approach suggests a troubling underlying assumption: that certain populations are inherently more suspect and should be subjected to increased surveillance. This reinforces existing inequalities and erodes trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
You deserve to have your privacy respected. You shouldn’t have to sacrifice your fundamental rights for the illusion of increased safety.
What This Means for the Future of Surveillance
The growing rejection of Flock Safety signals a turning tide in the debate over mass surveillance. Communities are demanding greater transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties.
As more cities and states re-evaluate their relationships with surveillance technology providers, it’s crucial to remember:
* Surveillance is not a substitute for effective policing and community investment.
* Privacy is a fundamental right,not a privilege.
* Technology should serve the public good,not erode our freedoms.
Filed Under: ALPRs, Illinois,Law Enforcement, Plate Readers, Surveillance, Surveillance State
Companies: Flock, Flock Safety
