Flock cameras: This SC town my triple cameras, deploy drones to aid surveillance
The town of Irmo may step up its crime-fighting surveillance efforts with a new set of tools, if the town council moves forward with plans some members worried could infringe on citizens’ privacy.
Irmo is considering adding more Flock Safety cameras around town that would record the license plates of vehicles as they pass through town. Irmo already has 11 such cameras around town, and town council members heard a presentation Tuesday on adding as many as 22 more.
“We’re not catching the entire town” with the current set up, Mayor Bill Danielson said. “I’ve worked with the [police] chief to identify areas we’re missing... and we’ve identified 22 additional locations, so that no matter where you go as a fleeing burglar, rapist or child molester, we’re going to be able to track that plate.”
The cameras manufactured by the Georgia-based Flock Safety are used by several law enforcement agencies across South Carolina to record information on vehicles that pass by the cameras. Police can then use the data to identify any cars they might be trying to locate, although Flock cameras only record the license number and a rear image of the car, not the car’s driver, company spokesman Jalen Johnson told the council Tuesday.
“As a former officer myself, it’s important that we don’t take the police work out of police work,” Johnson said.
All of the data the company collects is owned by the town, but Flock Safety also automatically deletes any data its servers store for more than 30 days.
Councilman Gabriel Penfield expressed concerns about how much data the town should be collecting on its citizens, especially since the proposal would also give the town the option of deploying drones.
Penfield told The State he had seen a demonstration of one of the drones and, “If it’s flying from here to Highway 6 as the crow flies, it’s recording all the way, including anybody who’s in their backyard.”
Johnson said Flock’s drones don’t fly around doing general surveillance of the community, and would only be deployed in response to specific incidents in specified locations. When not focused on a specific target, it flies with the camera facing the horizon, Johnson said.
“I don’t know what problem we’re solving if crime is down year over year,” Penfield said. “I’m a supporter of law enforcement, but not of 33 cameras and aerial surveillance.”
Councilwoman Phyllis Coleman said cameras have already become widespread even without the town getting involved, including neighboring jurisdictions that use the same tools.
“If I walk down the street, I’m being recorded on every house’s doorbell camera,” Coleman said. “I feel like it’s an inevitable part of society in general.”
Council didn’t make any decision on Tuesday, but at a future meeting the council could consider a four-year package that would cost $94,300 for the first year (including installation) and a total of $203,900 for the next three years.
.jpg)