Across Santa Clara County, a small piece of roadside hardware has become a primary subject of controversy. Cameras with automatic license-plate reading features, operated by Atlanta-based security firm Flock Safety, have come under scrutiny because of rising privacy concerns related to mass surveillance of citizens and concerns that local data could be helping federal deportation efforts.
Santa Clara County District Two Supervisor Betty Duong said that Flock is unreliable when it comes to upholding county policies.
Story continues below advertisement
“Cupertino is using Flock cameras; Saratoga is using Flock cameras; Los Altos is using Flock cameras, and they’ve canceled those contracts,” Duong said. “It is a vendor that seems problematic on the national landscape in terms of violating policies they sign onto.”
Duong said other counties are also concerned about Flock’s lack of data security.
“The number of cities that have cancelled their contracts with Flock and the number of advocates who have raised concerns specifically about Flock sharing data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and with federal agencies when they weren’t allowed to is really worrisome,” Duong said.
Similar worries have surfaced in Palo Alto. Palo Alto Neighborhoods Association co-chair Becky Sanders said privacy issues related to Flock cameras raise serious concerns for her.
“Virtually everyone supported ending a relationship with Flock,” Sanders said. “We would like the city to just turn them off until we can be 100% sure that the data is not being used in a way that it wasn’t designed.”
Duong said an investigation has been launched to determine whether Flock security is reliable and private.
“I’ve continued the extension of the [Flock contract] policy for a month, so that our account council, our attorneys and our administration can do a deep dive into what’s happening with Flock,” Duong said.
However, former Palo Alto Police Chief Advisor Hamilton Hitchings said Flock cameras are effective law enforcement tools.
“There certainly was anecdotal evidence that within 24 hours of the city turning on the systems, they were able to apprehend someone who drove a stolen car through Palo Alto,” Hitchings said. “Other departments in the Bay Area who have installed license plate readers are becoming more successful at catching people.”
Hitchings also said there isn’t any concrete evidence of camera abuse.
“Flock cameras are only in public spaces where there’s no expectation of privacy,” Hitchings said. “ If they find hard evidence that Flock was lying, then, of course, it would be completely appropriate, but there isn’t that evidence right now.”
Duong said that while there isn’t as large an expectation of privacy in public areas, the county’s policy around the use of surveillance is important because it protects against discrimination towards marginalized communities.
“Our surveillance-use policy is something that I stand by because it creates parameters where you can’t target a specific community or target specific suspects,” Duong said. “I’m very cognizant of the use of any surveillance technology that singles out certain people and progressive movements. Nobody should be subject to that.”
Hitchings also raised concerns about the logistical challenges that may arise if the city were to move away from Flock cameras.
“Flock is pretty widely used, and they’ve invested a bunch of money already,” Hitchings said.
Duong said that the county is already looking into alternative security solutions and investigating other counties’ changes to be prepared if Palo Alto decides to void contracts with Flock.
“I’ve asked the sheriff to work with contracted cities to let them know that there are other vendors and other alternatives out there,” Duong said. “For example, Los Altos Hills has already canceled their contract with Flock. So let’s find out what they’re doing. If they’ve canceled their contract with Flock, what other vendors have they opted for? It’s worthy of a deeper dive investigation.”
Flock Safety did not respond to requests for comment.