Area (Atlantic) Columnist Decides *Now* Is The Time To Start Defending Flock Safety

from the what-about-the-rights-of-the-poor-surveillance-tech-ceos dept

Flock’s ALPR (automated license plate reader) tech spread from HOAs to police departments at an alarming rate of speed. What was once a toy for the over-privileged soon became the go-to source of license plate images. Flock became the Ring of ALPRs, to mix a metaphor. And that’s when the bad news began to roll in.

Everything happened pretty much all at once. Cops were revealed to be using this tech to track people who simply wanted to seek legal abortion options in other states. Federal officers were revealed to be leaning heavily on local law enforcement to generate Flock ALPR searches federal officers weren’t legally allowed to perform on their own. And once the spread of Flock cameras reached an inflection point, cops did what cops have always done:

When blessed with persistent tracking tech, far too many officers tend to run searches targeting ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, their new paramours, and anyone else an officer might have a less-than-professional reason to be tracking.

Flock has felt the heat. It is now making extremely belated changes that might limit abuse in the future, but only if cop shops don’t choose to opt out of the default settings. Meanwhile, cities all over the nation are ditching Flock tech. And they’re finding out it’s almost impossible to do because Flock seems to prefer activated cameras to complying with the desires expressed by their now-former customers.

Flock is struggling to defend its contribution to easily abused surveillance. And cops aren’t doing themselves any favors by continuing to abuse this surveillance tech. Because no one asked him to do it, Atlantic contributor Charles Lehman has decided that now is the best time to defend Flock.

If you don’t know Charles Lehman, that’s fine. No one really does. But we’ll let his body of work speak for itself. Here’s Lehman arguing against the DEA siding with most of the nation by removing marijuana from federal drug schedules. Here’s Lehman arguing against mass transit because it’s (allegedly) too dangerous. Here’s Lehman claiming New York City is in the midst of a criminal apocalypse, despite the city enjoying historical lows in violent crime rates. Here’s Lehman — in his debut for the Atlantic — arguing that cops need to be paid more.

Given that background, it comes as no surprise that Lehman’s defense of Flock is as abhorrent as it is abysmally stupid. Let’s go to the leadoff, which suggests that there’s not enough data to support arguments against the efficacy of Flock’s ALPRs — an argument that deliberately chooses not to engage the data that has already been collected in this country.

Opening with anecdotal “evidence” provided by a single podcast guest, Lehman rolls into a mess of his own making:

Although research on Flock’s effectiveness is still in the making, ALPRs are likely a valuable tool for any modern police force. Privacy concerns can be best addressed through smart regulation, not bans. Indeed, in our surveillance-saturated society, police cameras can help make the criminal-justice system both fairer and less punitive—if we let them.

Lehman opens up with an assumption he can’t back with data (“likely”). Then he heads directly into claiming mass surveillance tech can be brought to check by “smart regulation.” Finally, he makes the literally unbelievable claim that adding more surveillance tech will make policing less biased and more forgiving — something that has never been the case no matter how much tech cop shops buy. If anything, adding surveillance tech tends to amplify these existing problems by allowing cops to target whoever they want while feeding compromised data to systems that are “trained” to output garbage if their only inputs are garbage.

Lehman is a rube: a guy who hears that this one time Flock cameras caught a guy in a stolen car and has extrapolated that singular event to signify a wholesale improvement in public safety. He’s no different from the people who see the 1-in-a-thousand “good guy with a gun” takedown of a mass shooter and declare gun control to be a public harm.

But let’s allow Lehman to speak for himself… at least as far as he’s capable of doing so:

The case for Flock is simple. Cameras help police catch criminals. That reduces crime through two channels: incapacitating offenders who are caught and convicted, and increasing the certainty of apprehension, which theoretically should deter criminals from offending in the first place. But is it true in practice? Although the research base is still developing, the answer is “probably.”

When your closing argument is “probably,” you’re basically just overstating the probability of “maybe?” and hoping no one will notice the difference. Dumping a “theoretically” between two statements you want to connect by bridging them with a term that scientifically demonstrates uncertainty absolutely subtracts from the conclusion Lehman hopes his fellow rubes will derive from this poorly-conceived construct.

You may think this argument in favor of a massive network of Flock cameras couldn’t get any stupider. But that may be because you’re hoping Lehman himself couldn’t get any stupider because you’re actually starting to feel bad for him — like he’s a substitute gym teacher who suddenly got asked to fill in for an absent sociology professor.

Don’t. He wanted this published and the Atlantic agreed to it. Let’s just let him wallow in his amazing arguments in favor of his “Flock is good actually” theory, especially when he decides the best proof that surveillance tech works can be found in countries where human rights and civil liberties are barely an afterthought:

An analysis exploiting the quasi-random distribution of cameras in Medellin, Colombia, found that they reduced crime by about 19 percent. Another paper showed a 25 percent reduction in crime in subway stations in Stockholm, Sweden, after cameras were installed in them. A third found a 20 percent reduction in areas of Montevideo, Uruguay, where cameras were introduced. And a fourth estimates that nearly tripling cameras per capita in China reduced crime by about 10 percent. 

Medellin’s violent crime rate has been dropping for years. The recent introduction of cameras hasn’t appreciably changed anything about this downward trend.

Citing a study focused on Stockholm is just inadvertently funny, because no one has ever thought of Stockholm as a criminal hellhole in need of maximal surveillance. While crime rates have been trending upward, some of that is due to law enforcement’s positive relationship with the people they serve — something that tends to result in more crimes being reported because the public actually feels law enforcement cares and will try to do something about it.

(And because I’m going to be far more fair than Lehman when dealing with this issue, I would assume some of our historical lows in crime rates are due to US citizens preferring not to interact with US law enforcement if at all possible, especially when they know some criminal acts will be ignored and that far too many cops will use a criminal investigation excuse to engage in warrantless searches, subject victims to harassment, or do the bare minimum needed to pencil whip an investigation checklist.)

But let’s really focus on the last sentence: here’s a person arguing in favor of persistent surveillance by citing supposed success in China. Let that sink in for a bit. Even ignoring the fact that Lehman thinks something that happened in a totalitarian nation supports his argument for increased surveillance of US people, we’re still left with the even more unseemly aspects of this citation in favor of Lehman’s pro-Flock theories: that crime reduction stats provided by a nation-state that completely controls the narrative are trustworthy. Good lord, man. Have some self-respect. Because if this is what you think is trustworthy data, you’re going to do nothing but spin in whatever direction Flock Safety PR reps or local law enforcement officials tell you to spin.

Lehman tries to temper that by saying he knows some people “will blanch” at using data from China to support ALPR cameras. And while he claims to recognize a trade-off is being made (often without our consent) to sacrifice privacy for law enforcement “efficiency,” he uses the term “security” to disguise the fact that this is just about cops wanting to get everything they want as quickly and easily as possible, no matter what harms it may pose to US residents and their rights.

After all of this fumbling towards a justification for increased surveillance, Lehman attempts to tie things up with a paragraph that isn’t actually supported by his arguments, his cherry-picked data, or his momentary asides in which he claims he’s respectful of civil rights and liberties:

Flock cameras are an easy target for a populist backlash. But although some of the concerns are reasonable, a panic about a “slave state” shouldn’t determine public policy. Intelligently regulated, ALPRs can be one among many tools in the toolbox of smarter—and therefore less severe—police forces. Dumping the cameras would just be foolish.

This is all bullshit. First, Lehman tries to diminish any rejection of mass surveillance systems and opposition to Flock and its tactics/services as “populist.” That’s pretty rich, coming from a fabulist who thinks he can add 2+2 and get 5 by pointing to data that doesn’t actually say what he thinks it says (and data that only says what the Chinese government wants it to say). Then he conjures up the theory of “intelligent regulation” before making it clear that any regulation he would consider to be “intelligent” would not result in the ditching of Flock ALPR systems. According to Lehman, “intelligent regulation” is limited to regulation he personally agrees with. Anything else is just “populism.”

To sum up: Lehman says persistent surveillance is right and everyone else is wrong. So long as it results in a few more arrests, the public should consider itself lucky to involuntarily be relieved of its constitutional protections.

Filed Under: acab, alpr, charles lehman, location tracking, persistent surveillance, police misconduct, stalking, surveillance, surveillance abuse

Companies: flock, flock safety