What Flock’s Defenders Are Missing
The gaps and ethical issues in police-tech giant Flock's system.
1Flock’s License Plate Readers and Updates
Flock, a police-tech company known for its network of 120,000 automatic license plate readers across the US, announced changes last Thursday aimed at preventing officers from using the system for illegal or illegitimate purposes. These updates focus on preventing misuse, particularly for harassment. However, these changes come with significant loopholes.
2Misuse of the System by Officers
According to a Washington Post investigation, systems from Flock and its competitors were misused in 50 cases, often for stalking women. One woman in Wisconsin alleged her ex-boyfriend, a police officer, searched for her car 179 times. Another woman was stalked by a police chief with no one to report it to.
3Flock’s New Security Measures
Flock introduced new measures requiring officers to provide a valid reason for each search. Software flags abnormal searches and requires officers to enter a criminal case number. However, officers can bypass these measures by entering bogus case numbers.
4Privacy vs. Security Balance
Flock’s systems, marketed as crime-fighting tools, face criticism for turning into mass surveillance networks. Civil liberties and privacy groups argue these systems violate citizens' rights. These criticisms have led some cities to cancel contracts with Flock and some states to attempt banning license plate readers.
5Limitations of Flock’s System
Flock’s systems are shaped by decisions on what information to collect, who can search it, how long to keep it, and how widely to share it. These decisions set the balance between security and civil liberties. However, Flock’s new measures do not fully address this balance.
6Alternative System Proposals
Flock’s systems could be designed more narrowly. For example, requiring officers to enter a real case number could be a stronger safeguard. Additionally, broader data access could be allowed in emergencies like finding missing persons. This could preserve the system’s value in emergencies without requiring mass surveillance.
7Data Collection and Retention Periods
Flock can retain data for months or years, and police in one city can access data from another. However, Flock’s own data shows 90% of searches occur within a week of an incident. This suggests data should only be kept and shared as long as it is useful for solving crimes.
8Community Role and Future
The debate over Flock’s systems highlights the need for communities to decide how technology should be used in crime-fighting and how much surveillance is acceptable. Some cities have canceled contracts with Flock, while others are writing new rules. This process could redefine the balance between security and privacy.
Original article: MIT Technology Review — Flock'un Güvenlik ve Mahremiyet Dengesindeki Eksikleri