cover them with garbage bags

Several American cities have resorted to a solution that may seem rudimentary, but which works wonders to curb surveillance of their own license plate cameras: cover them with black garbage bags. The last to do so was Daytonin Ohio, a city that is beginning to regret having installed them.

What has happened? Dayton has covered its Flock cameras, automatic license plate readers installed throughout the city, with trash bags. The reason, according to account deputy municipal director Joe Parlette in a plenary session, is that the city council is not entirely clear if the cameras are still recording or if it can remove them directly. So, while it finds out, it has chosen to cover them as a provisional measure.

The media 404Media, which has followed the case, confirmed with several neighbors that cameras covered with a garbage bag can be seen throughout the city.

They don’t know what to do. The picture may seem comical, but the truth is that city councils do not know how to disconnect a surveillance infrastructure that they themselves have installed. The cameras are owned by Flock Safety, a private company, and the contracts signed with the municipalities are so convoluted that the cities are not clear if they can turn them off, remove them or even stop recording without violating the agreement. Covering them with plastic is literally the only thing they feel they can do on their own.

The trigger. In Dayton everything exploded when it was discovered that the data from its cameras had ended up in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security and ICEthe US immigration agency, through the national Flock network. The city assures that it was not its intention and that a specific agent did not activate the protections that he himself had helped design; All you have to do is press a button to prevent data from being shared.

The police chief, Kamran Afzal, assured that “disappointing” was an understatement and that the word he would use would be “disgusting”, as he declared at a press conference. collection through the middle. The police ended up suspending the use of these readers “indefinitely” on May 1.

It is not an isolated case. Evanston, Illinois, did exactly the same thing late last year. After terminating its contract and getting Flock to remove the cameras, the city reported that the company replaced them without permission and sent it a legal notice. While waiting for them to be removed again, he covered them with bags. A municipal spokesperson explained to 404Media that the cameras are from Flock and only the company itself could remove them, so they covered them while they waited.

In Menominee (Wisconsin), the mayor even stated that the cameras had been activated without the approval of the entire municipal council.

The other version. flock defend that any city can turn off its cameras whenever it wants, although it clarifies that the legal conditions of each contract may prevent it from being canceled without justified reasons. The company attributes much of the rejection to misinformation circulating on the internet and maintains that surveillance works, citing an uptick in car thefts in Richmond, California, during the period in which its cameras were turned off. Regarding Dayton, he has made it clear that he wants to continue working with the city.

And now what. The question is whether Dayton will actually remove the cameras or if the program will remain in limbo. For neighborhood groups like DeFlock Dayton, covering the cameras is just an intermediate step. Melissa Bertolo, member of the platform, counted to the media that their demand is not to cover them but to remove them, because as long as they remain standing they could continue to capture data.

Cover image | Sydney Dawes

In Xataka | Concern over mass video surveillance has created a new product: anti-facial recognition glasses