The Select Board on Tuesday heard concerns about the Hopkinton Police Department’s use of Flock cameras to capture license plate and vehicle data. It also learned about the progress made by the committee in charge of reviewing police chief candidates.
Flock cameras utilize artificial intelligence to scan license plates. They also capture vehicle details, such as make, model and color.
Two cameras were installed in town — one on Hayden Rowe Street and the other on West Main Street near Interstate 495. Two more are planned, according to interim Police Chief Scott van Raalten.
“I was concerned that these cameras had been deployed without anyone’s knowledge,” said resident Amy Groves during the public comment period.
The Select Board should be notified about any camera deployment, she said, adding that there also should be a mechanism to audit HPD searches.
As a private company, Flock Safety potentially could share the data it captures with other entities, added Groves. This raised concerns about public surveillance and invasion of privacy.
Groves also discussed possible Fourth Amendment violations and potential data sharing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Resident Sravan Krishna echoed Groves’ fear of the potential for ICE data usage. He noted that the board placed ICE activity in Massachusetts as a future agenda item in February, but it has not acted on it yet.
Krishna raised the recent killings by ICE agents in Maine and Texas as reasons to move the discussion forward.
Interim chief provides details
Chair Shahidul Mannan explained that this was a “warm-up discussion” on the use of Flock cameras. Residents can voice opinions at follow-up meetings.
Added Mannan: “I wanted to make sure we pay the right attention and hear the full story from the authorities so there’s no confusion, full transparency and full understanding.”
Van Raalten explained that the Flock system has been around for about a decade. The HPD began looking into it about 1 1/2 years ago “in the interest of expanding our ability to investigate crimes.”
The Flock camera locations were “mapped out” taking traffic volume and camera placement in neighboring communities into consideration, he added.
Concerns have arisen about the data captured, how long it is held and who can access it, van Raalten explained.
The town’s policy with Flock Safety is “directly related to license plate readers,” he noted. Two cameras have been “up and running” for the past four months. Two more cameras are slated to be installed, pending landowner permission.
“We feel as though we have a robust policy that would address any malfeasance amongst our users,” said van Raalten. “In order to do a search for a vehicle, you need to basically spell out reasonable suspicion.”
Reasonable suspicion is the threshold for granting a subpoena, he added. This is the same for data requests to the state’s E-ZPass system.
The interim chief stressed that information is only shared with Massachusetts communities that have Flock agreements.
Added van Raalten: “We do not share with private entities, federal government or any out-of-state law enforcement organizations.”
The cameras have been helpful “as an investigative tool.”
“We could have reached the same conclusion without using the Flock system,” said van Raalten. “But it saved us hundreds of hours of investigative work to get to that result.”
Members voice feedback
Mannan said there needed to be a balance between using the cameras to solve crimes and the protection of people’s privacy.
“It just kind of came as a surprise to all of us that we didn’t know what had been happening,” added member Amy Ritterbusch.
Vice chair Matthew Kizner stressed that the HPD has “done nothing wrong” and did not purchase the cameras with taxpayer dollars. They were bought using asset forfeiture money obtained via investigations.
But he noted that “just because they have an agreement with you today does not mean that they’re not going to sell the data.”
Police chief search moves forward
Kizner updated the board on the Police Chief Screening Committee. He described members as a “very diverse” group “focused on a wide array of things.”
Twenty police chief candidates made it through the initial screening, but one withdrew from consideration.
The committee screened 10 “anonymized” resumes to prevent any bias. The remaining nine will be reviewed shortly, Kizner said.
Those who move on to the next screening process will have a written and verbal review. The remaining group of up to 13 candidates will meet with senior town staff. Those candidates will spend a day at the police assessment center.
The final group tentatively will appear before the Select Board “by the end of August,” according to Kizner.
Kizner requested that an earlier community survey be reposted on the town website to capture more resident input. An item about ICE responses will be included.
Thank you for reporting on the Flock camera discussion.
While I am relieved to learn that Hopkinton is deploying only Flock’s Falcon cameras, which read license plates and cars rather than people, I remain deeply disturbed by the Flock Safety company itself. I find their response to a number of disturbing security vulnerabilities and defects to be dismissive and even misleading.
It appears likely if not downright certain that Flock Safety has access to all of Hopkinton’s data, and I am unconvinced that they have the means or willingness to protect that data.
I have urged the Select Board to examine carefully the Data Privacy Privacy Policy or equivalent document, and to take a closer look at this company.
The Hopkinton contract with Flock Safety expires next year. If Hopkinton residents feel comfortable with this level of surveillance, another vendor could be vetted and selected.
Thank you, Amy, for bringing this issue to light. When the first Flock went up in Hopkinton, it seemed to have come out of nowhere, and, after some investigation into Flock, it makes sense as to why they install them when nobody’s paying attention. Flock is a very shady company that has officially made Orwell’s 1984 a reality. If a person were to go around and do what Flock does, it would be considered stalking and the action of doing so by the police would require a warrant. When a multi-billion dollar corporation does it, it’s suddenly okay? Hopkinton should follow Framingham’s footsteps and cancel the contract. I don’t feel safe with these things watching me.
Amy I don’t always have the same beliefs as you but you are spot on . Although there is no expectation of privacy in public an innocent person being held at gunpoint by officers thinking they have a felon in the vehicle is not good for public safety. A mental challenged child was involved in such a situation. The dad tried to inform officers yet they were to amped up to listen. That child was screamed at by officers and struggled to obey the police commands. I don’t want that in my community. Ensuing law suit cost the community dearly. Let’s activate all vehicle GPS get body and dash cameras then talk about monitoring cameras!
I would love to debate you on this subject matter. A police officer holding a subject at gun point isn’t something that happens everyday, it’s actually an anomaly. Hopkinton police as every other police officer in Massachusetts is very well trained in dealing with subjects who are suffering from mental health crises. Your use of the term “ amped up” is absolutely so ignorant. The police are very well trained to deal with subjects experiencing mental and or physical health issues. The police are always amped up on each and every call. You may not agree, but that saves lives, like it or not. You’re dealing with a one time situation that you didn’t agree with. The police are dealing with the same situation on a daily basis and have to make a split second decision. So in this circumstance you are a bit mad, but nobody got hurt ( except your feelings) or killed. I’ll take an amped up officer all day long,
Agreed Steve. I’ll push for body cameras that our town has been lacking for too long.
First of all, you don’t have any expectations of privacy in any public places. These cameras have been instrumental in solving crimes and identifying subjects that are actively committing crimes. Just like any other citizen with a cellphone camera can do. So the democrats want every police officer to wear a body camera, but the criminals are exempt. You get out of jail, you should be issued a body camera that should be in effect while on probation or parole. Crime would dramatically be decreased.
I agree there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. However, there is an expectation of privacy in your own movements (Carpenter v. United States), and this is exactly what Flock does. One camera ping on your car might not be a lot, but there are now a huge network of them (over 100,000) in the U.S. tracking everywhere you go. Because so many agencies share data with one another, your travel data could ultimately end up in the hands of ICE and who knows what else. This raises the issue of mass surveillance, data privacy, and security, which is why I believe that these kinds of tools need to be extremely regulated or not used at all.
Max, the data you are referring under Carpenter vs United States is expressly focused on an individual’s personal cell phone under his / her direct control. In that instance the Supreme Court was focused in the active ping data from cell towers that identify the location of the cell phone. The court deemed a warrant showing probable cause was needed, but in a life threatening situation a warrant was not needed. Cameras posted in public places taking pictures of the general public do not come under Carpenter vs United States. As an example, a loved one is missing and has left a note that they plan on harming themself or others. No warrant needed to ping the cell phone to try and get a location. Thank God, used everyday in Massachusetts and many lives saved.
I support ICE using the Flock cameras
Okay, do we all agree that since Kristin supports ICE using the Flock cameras, that ICE can use the Flock cameras just on Kristin, and leave the rest of us alone? Seems reasonable.
Love it Amy. 😂.
If the town wants them gone let them be gone.
‘The Perfect Police State’ by Geoffrey Cain is an expose of where this can go. Oh, and the police force in that case is neither wearing body cameras nor GPS devices. I have been told that the HPD has such, but that they are not being employed.
The issue I have here is the HPD knew of these cameras and our Select Board didn’t know? Kind of like they never told the SB that Sismanis was on the sex offender list for 20 years? Like the town manager who decided we’d only CORI check business owners their first year open? Or when she decided to just never do a CORI check on Sismanis? Ya what could possibly go wrong here? Let’s get rid of these cameras.