Flock delay allows for new regulations

The Suffolk County Police Department just defused a tense situation.

By postponing the implementation of a new $3.79 million system designed by Flock Safety to detect gunfire that also would be integrated into an existing license plate reader system, the department distanced itself from the privacy controversy engulfing the company. Instead, the current ShotSpotter system will remain for another year.

The police department would only say the move was “due to unfortunate circumstances in acquiring a new system for the Department” while county elected officials claimed they knew nothing about the decision. The move to Flock and then the course reversal were initiated by Suffolk’s police department and district attorney. The Flock system was seen initially as a less expensive and more precise sound detection system.

The sudden move comes against the backdrop of a tense election season as distrustful voters nationwide have been pushing back on Flock’s license plate readers which have become a proxy for the growing fears that artificial intelligence, data centers and biometric screenings are sustaining a national surveillance infrastructure.

Whatever the reason, Suffolk’s move away from this Flock system right now was the correct one. The selection process, however, highlights how the county foolishly was making decisions without engaging in a larger and critical debate about what limits should be in place for surveillance technology. It also underscores the need for state regulation of how the information collected by all these cameras — an estimated 700 are in use on Long Island — is used by various levels of law enforcement. There also must be tighter rules restricting private companies from amassing these huge databases.

These high-speed Flock surveillance cameras — there are more than 100,000 in use nationwide — capture a vehicle’s license plate, make, model and color along with time stamps and GPS coordinates. Billions of images are generated. The Flock system also can alert a local police department when the vehicle’s details hit a match for stolen cars, suspects or an Amber Alert for a missing child.

Plate readers have been used for decades, and police officials maintain they are effective crime-fighting tools. But as this information is integrated with other ubiquitous digital tracking devices detailing a person’s activities and associations, what are the costs to our civil liberties?

That’s why the worry that the growing number of cameras are becoming woven into a national surveillance network are legitimate. And who controls the data collected and for how long becomes a raw, pressing concern.

The State Legislature failed to act this year on a comprehensive bill drafted by the New York Civil Liberties Union which would require all information captured by these plate-reading cameras to be destroyed within 48 hours unless the information can be connected with an ongoing investigation. It calls for even tighter limits on sharing the data out of state. It’s an issue that must be atop the legislature’s agenda in 2027.