What the Chief Said...and What He Didn't

 

Misinformation or Legitimate Questions?

Photo courtesy of flocksafety.com

Chief Rich Fletcher's recent statement about Kelso's new Flock Safety camera system asks residents to trust that the technology will only be used appropriately. The problem is that trust has never been the standard that protects civil liberties. Laws, oversight, transparency, and accountability do.

Throughout his statement, the Chief repeatedly frames concerns about Flock cameras as "misinformation" or "misconceptions." That immediately places anyone asking legitimate questions into the category of someone who simply doesn't understand the technology. That is disingenuous and wrong. Questioning government surveillance is not misinformation. It is exactly what citizens should do.

The issue has never been whether Flock cameras can help solve crimes. Of course they can. Most technology can be used for good. The real question is whether the public has been given enough information to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs and what safeguards exist if the system is abused.

Those are two very different conversations.

What the Cameras Don't Capture...and What They Do

The Chief spends considerable time explaining what Flock cameras do not capture. They do not record continuous video. They do not identify drivers. They do not see inside vehicles. They do not measure speed.

That sounds reassuring until you consider what they do collect.

Every vehicle passing one of these cameras has its license plate, location, date, time, and identifying characteristics recorded and stored. Whether the driver is a criminal suspect or simply heading home from work is irrelevant. The information is collected first. The distinction comes later. It's the antithesis of RCW 10.58.020, which specifically states that, in the state of Washington, "Every person charged with the commission of a crime shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and when an offense has been proved against him or her, and there exists a reasonable doubt as to which of two or more degrees he or she is guilty, he or she shall be convicted only of the lowest."

So, while it may not be continuous video, it is still government collection of travel data from thousands of innocent people.

The Missing Information

Just as importantly, the statement never explains where that data is actually stored. Is it housed on city-owned servers? Is it stored in the cloud? Is it maintained by Flock Safety? If so, where are those servers physically located? Who is responsible for securing the data against breaches?

Those aren't minor technical details. They're fundamental questions about who controls information collected on the public.

The statement also says very little about who can actually access the data. We are told Kelso officers can search it under certain circumstances, but that leaves many unanswered questions. Can detectives from neighboring jurisdictions access it? What about state agencies? Federal agencies? Does Flock Safety itself have access to the stored information for maintenance, troubleshooting, or analytics? If multiple agencies can search the database, who determines whether each search is appropriate? What safeguards are in place to ensure that the data isn't hacked?

Simply saying the information is not shared with unauthorized agencies doesn't tell the public who is authorized. Those are very different things.

Scale Changes Everything

The statement also argues that a police officer observing traffic can see more than a Flock camera can. An officer may observe the driver, passengers, or activity inside a vehicle.

That comparison misses the point.

A police officer cannot sit at every intersection in Kelso twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Automated surveillance changes the scale of government observation. This is not about whether one camera captures less information than one officer. It is about creating a network that never gets tired, never looks away, and records every passing vehicle whether there is any suspicion of criminal activity or not.

Scale matters.

Privacy Isn't the Only Issue

The Chief is correct that courts have generally held there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle's license plate when it is displayed on a public roadway. That legal principle is well established.

But constitutional discussions rarely end there.

The concern is not whether a single officer can see a license plate while standing on a street corner. The concern is what happens when thousands or millions of those observations are collected into searchable databases capable of revealing travel patterns, routines, associations, and habits over time.

Technology changes what is practically possible, even when each individual observation may be lawful.

History has repeatedly shown that government surveillance powers often expand beyond their original purpose.

Today's policy may restrict searches to felony and gross misdemeanor investigations. Tomorrow's city council could amend those policies. State law can change. Data retention periods can be extended. Additional cameras can be installed.

Good public policy should never depend solely on trusting today's officials.

It should be designed to protect citizens regardless of who occupies those offices tomorrow.

Trust Is Not Transparency

The Chief emphasizes that every search is documented and audited. That is certainly encouraging.

But transparency requires more than internal assurances.

How many searches are performed each month? How many alerts identify completely innocent drivers? How often is data shared with outside agencies? Who conducts the audits? Are those audit results publicly available? What disciplinary action occurs if misuse is discovered?

Without publicly available metrics, citizens are being asked to accept promises instead of evidence.

The Emotional Appeal

One section of the statement deserves particular attention.

The Chief writes that if this technology helps recover an abducted child, locate a missing elder with dementia, solve a violent crime, recover a stolen vehicle, or apprehend a dangerous offender before additional victims are harmed, then it has served an important public safety purpose.

Those examples are emotionally compelling because they should be. No reasonable person opposes finding missing children or arresting violent criminals.

But public policy cannot be evaluated solely by its best-case scenario.

Nearly every surveillance technology can point to extraordinary success stories. The harder question is whether the routine collection of information from innocent people is justified by measurable results, whether adequate safeguards exist against abuse, and whether less intrusive alternatives could accomplish the same goals.

Those questions deserve answers as well.

Where Is the Independent Oversight?

Another noticeable omission from the statement is independent oversight.

There is no discussion of civilian review. No commitment to regular public reporting. No explanation of how citizens can independently verify compliance beyond trusting the department's own internal procedures. No discussion of what remedies exist if misuse occurs.

Trust is valuable.

Verification is better.

Government earns public confidence not by asking for trust, but by making accountability visible.

Asking Questions Isn't Being Anti-Police

None of this means Kelso police officers have bad intentions. It does not mean Flock cameras have no investigative value. It does not mean every criticism posted online is accurate.

It does mean that healthy skepticism is not the enemy of public safety.

It is one of the cornerstones of a free society.

The Chief closed his statement by inviting respectful dialogue.

That invitation should include recognizing that asking difficult questions about expanding government surveillance is not fearmongering, misinformation, or being anti-police.

It is what engaged citizens in a constitutional republic are supposed to do.

Transparency Means More Than Good Intentions

If the goal is truly transparency, then transparency should extend beyond describing what the cameras can and cannot do. It should include clear answers about where the data resides, who owns it, who can access it, how it is protected, who audits that access, and what happens if those safeguards fail. Those are not unreasonable questions. They are the questions every informed citizen should be asking before accepting the expansion of any government surveillance system.

Technology should serve the public.

The public should never be expected to simply serve the technology.