The Legislative Council at its August 19 meeting approved a resolution that no stationary license plate reader cameras would be added in town, and that current ones would be turned off and covered up to indefinitely prevent their use.

Two days later, following the meeting, Newtown Police department agreed to deactivate the cameras in a press release that was published on newtownbee.com and the Newtown Police Department's Facebook page.

Flock cameras became a hot topic in town when the council discovered that there were 18 stationary Flock cameras in town. The Police Department has been using Flock license plate readers in its patrol cars for well over a decade, but the stationary readers are less than two years in town, approved by the Police Commission.

Flock cameras are automated license plate reading (ALPR) and video surveillance systems made by Flock Safety, a private company. They capture vehicle details like license plates, make, model, color, and unique vehicle features, storing data in a cloud network used by police and private communities. Data collected by the cameras is only to be stored for 30 days.

The August 19 meeting began with a presentation on Flock Inc, the company that the town contracted for 18 stationary license plate readers around town.

Newtown Police Chief David Kullgren said that Flock provides the town with a "tool that provides meaningful safety and security benefits to the community."

"It's a force multiplier," said Kullgren. "It allows us to do more, and faster. It's a focused tool that solves real cases. Missing people come home faster, stolen cars are found. There is more justice, and more safety."

While there have been abuses of the system like an officer in another state using it to track an ex-partner, Kullgren noted it is a felony to do so and that officers would go to jail for such a misuse.

Kullgren noted that the cameras take a picture of the vehicle and the license plate and only store that for 30 days. No other personal information is tracked, he said.

New laws have gone into effect in Connecticut that Kullgren said further protect residents. Flock cameras in Connecticut and Newtown cannot be used for immigration enforcement, cannot investigate people for reproductive health or gender affirming care, and cannot monitor people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political ideology, and first amendment protected activities.

Kullgren also noted a number of cases where Flock was used by NPD to catch offenders, such as several road rage incidents, and two robberies.

While Kullgren was unable to provide exact statistics other than thefts are down 44%, he did say case closure rates were up.

Councilman Arnie Berman questioned the lack of hard statistics, and that Flock's business model is data sharing.

Berman noted that there are 169 towns in Connecticut, and 50 of them use stationary license plate readers from Flock. He asked if Kullgren would feel that not using them would put the department at a disadvantage.

Kullgren said that when the Flock cameras were first brought up, he was "skeptical," but within six days an overnight burglar was caught after a burglary on Commerce Road.

Berman noted that with other companies offering similar services, the municipalities "hold the access keys," but with Flock, it holds the keys in spite of saying it allows municipal control.

Councilman Lily Mac Hugh said that the meeting had a "room full of people who have concerns outside of propaganda from Flock." Addressing Kullgren, she asked if that was a concern for him.

Kullgren said he respected everyone's opinions, and he was invited to the meeting to educate the public on facts about Flock and the laws that govern it.

"We're not misusing [Flock]," said Kullgren.

Mac Hugh noted there were cases out there concerning misuse of Flock cameras, including an officer stalking an ex-significant other and a case where Texas tracked a woman who had an abortion in another state.

Kullgren responded that out of 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the country, there are fewer than 100 incidents that "we're hearing."

"That's .0125% of law enforcement officers," said Kullgren. "In Newtown, for 18 years, there has been zero misuse of vehicle cameras.”

Councilman Jordana Bloom said she appreciates all that Newtown Police Department does.

"We know you have faith in your officers, and we do too, but across the country, we hear of abuses. It takes a lot to get this many people concerned," said Bloom. "The potential misuse is evidenced by how many laws have been changed to mitigate these cameras."

Bloom said a "surveillance state is a problem" and she was concerned with "blind allegiance" to the Flock brand.

Councilman Chris Eide said the "people we [the Legislative Council and Newtown Police Department[ all work for are out in this audience."

"If they don't want to be tracked, it's difficult to get around that," said Eide, who further said that Flock has the access keys to the information and can do what it wants with it. "Everything I've heard has to have trust behind it, and that trust is being put in a company I don't trust, and I know others in town do not trust."

Eide agreed there were only a few bad actors in law enforcement, and that "every single bad guy we get with this is great.

"But at the end of the day, the information is being kept on a server owned by a multi-billion dollar company we're trusting to tell the truth," said Eide.

Eide also had concerns about what Flock would do if it gets caught between conflicting state laws, like if Texas required information on persons receiving abortions outside their state and if Connecticut didn't want to give that information.

"What is Flock supposed to do?" asked Eide. "I don't know the answer to that."

Councilman Ben Ruben asked if the council required a limited pilot with conditions such as shorter information retention periods, documented searches, stricter audit logs, and stricter limits on data sharing, would the performance of the system be impaired for Newtown.

"Yes, and we're open to those discussions," said Kullgren.

Councilman Michelle Embree Ku assured the police that their "incredible work is valued in spite of us putting you on the spot and grilling you." She noted that Newtown has one of the lowest crime rates in the state and Connecticut has the fifth lowest crime rate in the country.

Public Comment

Nearly 20 people spoke during public participation, with most, but not all, in opposition to the cameras.

Resident James McFarland said he appreciates the town's public services and wants them to have the best tools available, but he doesn't support use of the Flock technology.

Resident Nick Gallella said he was concerned about the lack of knowledge expressed about "how AI database systems operate.

"You need to educate yourselves so you know how data moves in a corporate database," said Gallella, who also noted there were "no statistics on the effectiveness of Flock" presented, "just anecdotes."

"Flock does not photograph faces yet, it does not track vehicles yet, but legality is fluid," said Gallella. "What this company can do legally is fluid. Now I can weigh in on this at a meeting and drive home safely without being hassled, but this is an authoritarian's dream tool. It can easily be abused."

Resident Alex Fuentes said since Newtown consistently rates as one of the safest towns in one of the safest states, the Flock system is "selling snow to an eskimo.

"We have invited this duplicitous company to our town," said Fuentes. "When they started this, it was a system to gather traffic data. They keep the cameras running even when asked to turn them off. The chief says things are 100% anonymous, but how do we catch thieves if it’s anonymous?"

Resident Hannah Fisher said the Flock cameras do not make her feel safer, and expressed concerns that "government regulations on technology are not always adhered to."

"If Flock is saving the information, by the time they are held to account the damage is already done," said Fisher.

Resident Kate Shirk noted while Flock helps solve some crimes, having a camera on each resident's house would also help "solve a lot of crimes."

"It's a matter if we tolerate what these cameras imply, which is consent to be surveilled and a privatization of law enforcement," said Shirk. "It is a prioritization of property rights over my right to privacy. The non-stop surveillance of an innocent population creates an erosion of being innocent until proven guilty, where the population is seen as pre-suspects in pre-crimes."

Resident Ryan Knapp expressed disappointment this was the second time the issue was before the council, feeling it should have ended in a decision at the previous meeting. He also expressed disappointment to see so many police officers at the meeting when he felt that in the past, when he was a member of the council, it was difficult to get officers to the meeting for security.

Knapp said that all he heard was a "sales pitch" and that there were other vendors that do not have Flock's reputation or that have "lied to towns." He noted that Bethel got rid of Flock cameras and Southbury chose not to bring them in.

Knapp acknowledged that not using the cameras may make the police department's job harder, "but that's right because it's a trade off with our civil rights and civil liberties."

=====

Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.