<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=2xIBVU_1H1gkuI500" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=2xIBVU_1H1gkuI500" width="1691" height="1691" ></figure>Springfield residents have expressed concern about automated license plate recognition cameras from Flock, like this one seen in the neighboring town of Ludlow.Reminder Publishing photo by Sarah HeinonenSPRINGFIELD — For months, Springfield residents have expressed privacy concerns about automated license plate recognition technology in the city. Now, Ward 8 City Councilor Zaida Govan has proposed an ordinance that would ban the technology from the city.The city has a contract with Flock Safety, which provides the city with a web of artificial intelligence-enhanced cameras, which snap images of all vehicles passing by, largely without the drivers’ knowledge. Those images can then be accessed by law enforcement through a searchable database.More than a dozen people packed themselves into the City Council office for the Public Safety Committee meeting, with another 20 people on Zoom. Police Superintendent Lawrence Akers, Deputy Jeff Martucci, Lt. Rick Viruet and Real Time Analysis Center Manager Katherine Howard attended the meeting to answer questions and explain how ALPRs are used in Springfield. Flock’s director of public trust and technology, Max Weinstein, joined the meeting via Zoom.Govan shared that she had heard privacy concerns about ALPRs from many constituents. “Big Brother’s here,” she said, referencing George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.” Her ordinance would require the cameras to be disconnected and removed within 30 days, and the access credentials of all city employees would be disabled. All data collected by the ALPRs would be deleted locally and Flock would be instructed to delete any backups and data. The City Council would check for compliance by requiring a progress report from the mayor’s office within 60 days.At the Public Safety Committee, Akers said that while many police departments use ALPRs, they are among the most controversial. Akers described the system as a “great tool for law enforcement … It’s for serious crimes. It’s for people in need.” He later told Reminder Publishing that passing the ordinance “would be removing a valuable tool we have at our disposal … That’s a big hit.”Assuring councilors and residents at the meeting, Akers said, “My complete attention is on the concerns the community has.” He said, “Anytime you have a powerful technological tool, you may have concerns,” and added that the Police Department had put in place “strong policies, strong oversight.”Howard said the technology is most commonly used to locate stolen autos, find suspects in weapons offense cases and track down vehicles involved in hit-and-runs. It is also used in Amber Alert and Silver Alerts, when a child or adult with dementia is missing.Viruet went over the history of ALPR use in Springfield. The city has used some form of ALPR since 2011. “ALPR technology did not start with Flock,” he said. The Police Department has used multiple ALPR vendors over the years, and in 2023, it contracted with Flock.While residents expressed feeling as though there had been no transparency around the Flock contract, Viruet said the Police Department frequently switches vendors without notifying the public. City Council President Tracye Whitfield added, “Not all contracts come to the City Council.” With the volume of procurements across all city departments, she said, “It would be impossible.”Seeking to allay concerns, Weinstein said, “There’s a lot of misconceptions.” He described ALPRs as creating “a better, more efficient way of policing.” He explained that Springfield owns the data from Flock’s cameras, including all the images. He said the cameras capture still images of the license plate, make, model, color of a vehicle and any bumper stickers. “Flock does not use that data to generate revenue,” he asserted.Residents questioned the truthfulness of Weinstein’s statement. One person said that they may not sell the data, but he believes they sell access to the database. “This company is not a not-for-profit, doing this for the betterment of Springfield,” he said.He also quoted the American Civil Liberties Union, saying “Flock’s standard contract with Massachusetts Police Departments include language giving the company a ‘non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right and license to disclose the agency data’ to law enforcement … This contract language may supercede your police department’s selection of restrictive settings.’”Another resident said the company may not sell the data but makes money on the potential to access the data by using the vast network of Flock-connected police departments as a selling point. Only communities that subscribe to Flock can request data and images from other Flock-connected municipalities.At Large City Councilor Brian Santaniello asked if Flock had ever been hacked and how it could prevent hacks in the future. Weinstein responded that, while the company had never had a hacking incident, “No one can guarantee they won’t be hacked.” Flock uses Amazon Web Services, which Weinstein said was a popular and secure cloud storage company. AWS, as it is commonly abbreviated, has been hacked several times in recent years, and as recently as this month.Martucci noted that video from the Police Department’s body-worn cameras is stored in the same manner, and it is at equal risk of hacking.Santaniello also pointed to an incident in which Flock reconnected the cameras in a Minnesota city after its police department physically disconnected them because Flock did not respond to a request to terminate the service. Weinstein said that was a misunderstanding, but Santaniello said it is not the only such instance of Flock ignoring the intention of municipalities that end their use of the ALPRs.Whitfield noted that the cameras seem to be focused on Springfield’s Mason Square neighborhood and asked how the ALPR locations were selected. Viruet said that the ALPRs were mainly sited in the city’s major arteries.When Ward 6 City Councilor Victor Davila asked if the ALPRs can be used to connect a person to a vehicle the police are looking for, Viruet said, “Absolutely not.” Martucci said police personnel must enter case information into the system to access the data, then they can only search for the vehicle’s parameters, although they can refine the search by date and time.One person asked who else has access to Springfield’s cameras. Viruet said he did not have a list immediately available, but that no federal agencies had access.A resident brought up that even well-intentioned police departments have run into controversy because the default restriction settings left the systems open to outside searches. Weinstein responded that many of the controversies around Flock stem from before the company changed some of its practices in 2025. He admitted that the company had not always made its settings easy to find and control.Pushing back on an often-cited argument that people do not complain about being tracked by software on their phones, one person pointed out that police need warrants to obtain that data, while the cameras are surveilling drivers’ movements without a warrant.A resident said the police are courting legal liability if a mistake is made based on ALPRs, as has happened in other parts of the country. Someone else said there is a “concerning pattern of incidents around the country and referenced reports that the ALPRs had been used by police to stalk people.“Those are unbelievable,” Viruet said, condemning “those amazing examples of violations,” but he urged the councilors and residents to research whether there had been any complaints filed regarding Springfield’s use of ALPRs. A resident responded that those other communities thought their systems were secure, as well.A follow-up Public Safety Committee meeting was scheduled for Nov. 17.</div></body>

Block Source: thereminder.com

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

SPRINGFIELD — For months, Springfield residents have expressed privacy concerns about automated license plate recognition technology in the city. Now, Ward 8 City Councilor Zaida Govan has proposed an ordinance that would ban the technology from the city. The city has a contract with Flock Safety, which provides the...

Springfield committee considers Flock camera ban, questions SPD

NewsBreak

SPRINGFIELD — For months, Springfield residents have expressed privacy concerns about automated license plate recognition technology in the city. Now, Ward

Springfield committee considers Flock camera ban, questions SPD

Comments