More than a dozen speakers at a public listening session last week voiced their concerns about the prospect of the Brevard Police Department acquiring three license plate reading cameras (ALPR). Among their concerns were potential invasions of privacy, creation of what some see as a surveillance system as well as who has access to data the cameras capture.
The session was held at the request of the Brevard City Council ahead of its Sept. 8 council meeting when a vote may be held on the department’s request. The cameras were offered at no cost by Axon – a company based in Scottsdale, Arizona, that develops weapons and technology products for the military, law enforcement and civilians – as part of a ‘bundle’ that includes body cameras and tasers for officers. If approved, the city would enter into a five-year contract with Axon covering the body-worn cameras, tasers and ALPR cameras. The total cost is broken down into annual payments. The bundled cost for all three components is actually slightly less than the cost of the body cameras and tasers without the ALPR component.
The high-tech cameras have generated controversy as opponents contend the devices could ostensibly be used beyond the intended purpose of recording license plates and vehicle features. Most of the criticisms are aimed at Flock Safety, by far the largest supplier of ALPR equipment with an 80% product share, according to RoadSigns.com. About 150,000 such cameras from all suppliers are in use in the U.S. Axon has tried to differentiate itself in the market with more stringent policies to assure data protection and information sharing.
In recent weeks before the listening session, the city and police department fielded citizen comments and incorporated much of that input into the contract with Axon as well as a revamped set of policies to deter the very concerns heard from the public. City Manager Wilson Hooper said the city intends to “make sure our program is as tight as it can be,” which amounts to setting “guardrails around the proposal” to assuage any concerns of the public.
The meeting follows discussion of the cameras and prospective policy changes on three separate occasions by the city council’s Public Safety Committee. The council encouraged a formal listening session to give residents a forum to air their comments. Indeed, several speakers thanked the council for hosting the session.
Before speakers took to the microphone, Police Chief Christy Wentzell briefed the group on the policy updates and outlined the anti-crime pluses for her small department. She also tried to dispel online and social media misconceptions about the cameras and intended uses.
The chief said the cameras record features of a vehicle and have no facial recognition capabilities and merely provide leads to officers who must independently verify whether the vehicle was involved in a suspected crime. The devices are not used to track individuals or for traffic control or to capture speeds and are not synched to cell phones. The ALPRs convert digital data into text, which is completely owned by the police department. The data can be tied to ‘hot lists’ — cases the department and other police agencies are already investigating. Axon images cannot be shared with other law enforcement departments, including the federal government, unless approved by Wentzell. However, the data could be shared if a warrant is issued. Data not tied to a case or investigation is purged after 30 days.
The cameras may provide a head start to solving criminal cases by providing leads for her department, but the chief said they, “do not replace good, basic investigative police work.”
“We are a short staffed department,” she said, but the cameras would be a “force multiplier for us.”
Speakers reflected an unease with the prospect of cameras recording their movements along with overall privacy concerns.
Robert Jarowski told the gathering of about 60 people that data collection allows a “dossier to be created for honest, innocent people” and that multiple cameras could record “where you’ve been and where you’re going. And that’s a very scary thing.”
Cari Wright asked once the program starts, “where is it going to go? It makes me nervous.” She is also concerned about the potential for abuse and she advocated for public input if changes are made to policies or the Axon contract.
The cameras represent something more than identifying vehicles for Carter Heyward. “I think we are losing more and more to surveillance,” she said. “It’s not a Democratic or Republic issue; it’s a people’s issue.”
He suggested creation of a board to oversee the ALPR effort.
The issue of securing data was central for John Fenner. Data breaches have become common and Axon data may not be immune to information theft. “We know that any system is not foolproof in protecting our data,” he said. Anything we encrypt can be accessible. I don’t have faith and trust there won’t be a request for this data.”
Even if the Brevard Police Department is small, to Erika Jordan the cameras are “not a BandAid for staffing shortages.”
Others echoed larger concerns about invasion of privacy or unwarranted search and seizure prohibited by the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution.
Some questions posed by speakers could not be answered at the meeting. The city has posted those responses to its website at cityofbrevard.com/1546/ALPR-Program.
