Kernan, chairman of the Safety Committee, and council member Scott Pelot voted to bring the proposal forward. Whipkey said she had spoken with a couple of residents who support the cameras, but many who are against them. That right there ought to be a red light going off in everybody’s heads.” We don’t have any, the state has none, the feds don’t have any. “The biggest thing: There’s no laws governing this,” Whipkey said. Whipkey, however, argued that constraints put on system users was inadequate. "I think the possible negatives are so remote it doesn't make sense to not give the police this tool," he said. Kernan said he understood residents' concerns about privacy, but said cameras are ubiquitous in today's society and the information collected was limited. "I thought it was an opportunity to give the police a good tool to use," he said Tuesday. "I’m a bit disappointed that it was rejected." Norton City Council member Joe Kernan, who supported bringing the Flock system to the city, said the benefits outweighed the potential for misuse. They are not used to write tickets, and information is written over after 30 days.Īccording to the company, the Falcon cameras capture the make, vehicle type, color, license plate (full, partial, or missing), state of the license plate, and various vehicle features, including damage and after-market alterations. “There is tremendous concern about how this data is going to be used, abused and stolen.” The benefits of Flock Safety surveillanceįlock Safety credits its cameras with a decline in crime in communities that have implemented its license-plate reading system. “Who went to a gun show and who went to a candidates rally and mosque?” Schwartz said. Hackers or unscrupulous individuals with access to information compiled by Flock or similar systems could use that information against political or religious opponents or for personal reasons, Schwartz said. He said government surveillance technology could lead to "political spying." Those with access to data acquired by the system, from law enforcement to home owners associations, are bound only by agreements that can be readily violated or ignored, he said. 1, organized crime or foreign nations stealing the data and using it to harass or commit identity theft,” Schwartz said in a recent phone interview. The EFF, founded in 1990, is a nonprofit organization that defends civil liberties and privacy in the digital arena. “Perhaps they just haven’t brought anybody’s attention to them to make it worthwhile to hack, or they haven’t upset the right person that has the capabilities of doing so.”Īdam Schwartz, senior lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said information acquired by Flock cameras could be mined by nefarious individuals or organizations able to breach the system. Well, my question is they’ve only got 1,500 across the nation,” she said at the meeting. The concern was raised during prior discussion of the surveillance system and the councilwoman argued it was a legitimate one. Whipkey also cited the possibility of hacking as a reason for her opposition. Council member Charlotte Whipkey said the cost of the system had climbed and a decision to cancel the program before the agreement expired would cost the city $500 per camera.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |