What would Flock police cameras in Irmo do? Town seeks to address concerns
The town of Irmo is defending its decision to expand its use of license plate-reading cameras to provide more comprehensive coverage of the town, even as some residents worry about the level of surveillance all those cameras might put them under.
Town officials are planning to triple the number of cameras from Flock Safety that monitor traffic around town, allowing law enforcement to locate specific vehicles traveling through the community. Such cameras have become a popular feature for police departments across the country to use to gather data that could aid them in future investigations.
But the prospect of 33 separate cameras monitoring key intersections in town, collecting vehicle information on anyone who passes by. This week, Irmo put out a news release touting the benefits of the system to town residents and their safety.
“Since that announcement, we’ve seen some questions and, unfortunately, some misinformation circulating online,” the news release says.
The town says the cameras capture images of license plates and the rears of cars for officers to review. They do not use facial recognition technology or take pictures of drivers, Irmo said in the release.
“These cameras are not monitored to follow law-abiding citizens as they go about their daily lives,” the town said. “They are strictly investigative tools that help law enforcement quickly identify vehicles associated with crimes” such as stolen vehicles, missing person cases, burglaries or other major crimes.
“If a child is abducted, a violent criminal flees our town, or a family is desperately waiting for answers after a loved one goes missing, I never want to look them in the eye and say, ‘We could have used technology that might have helped, but we chose not to,’” Police Chief Bobby Dale said in a statement.
Use of the cameras has become a lightning rod as they become more ubiquitous. In Albany, Georgia, this month, five police officers were fired and arrested after they allegedly accessed the town’s cameras for “non-law enforcement purposes,” according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigations. In Pageland, S.C., two camera poles carrying Flock cameras were “intentionally cut down.”
This year, the S.C. General Assembly considered a bill that would have allowed the state Department of Transportation to use the technology to read license plates on state highways, although the legislation did not advance before the end of the session in May.
A representative of Flock Safety previously told Irmo Town Council that all the data the company collects is owned by the town, and that Flock Safety also automatically deletes any data its servers store for more than 30 days.
At an upcoming town council meeting, Irmo is set to consider a four-year package deal with Flock Safety on 22 additional cameras, up from the 11 the town currently uses. That deal would cost the town $94,300 for the first year (including installation) and a total of $203,900 for the next three years, according to a presentation the Georgia-based security firm gave to town council earlier this month.
“We understand that anytime new technology is introduced, questions about privacy are completely appropriate,” the town said. “We welcome those questions. Transparency is vital, and our citizens deserve accurate information, not rumors.”
.jpg)