Ray Marcano is a Columbus Dispatch contributing columnist.
People are sure wound up over Flock security cameras, huh?
These automated license plate readers are supposed to be a tool to help law enforcement nab crooks. The readers, anywhere between 80,000 and nearly 100,000 in 49 states, constitute a huge data-sharing network.
Privacy advocates worried that the data could be shared for uses outside of local policing, with much of the concerns involving immigration enforcement.
Some departments share data with the federal government while others don’t.
Dayton’s one city that wasn’t supposed to share data, but it did, and that’s caused a mess in this southwestern Ohio city. Officials suspended the use of cameras after a police department commander, who isn’t with the department anymore, didn’t implement restrictions on how data could be shared. Police let other agencies scan their database more than 7,000 times for immigration-related reasons, according to WYSO.
Big Brother watching?
Camera use has always been an emotional issue that’s raised the specter of Big Brother watching every move. And while that is troubling, it’s not a reason to suspend use, as Dayton has, or not renew a contract, as the Detroit suburb of Clawson recently did.
Clawson officials expressed concern over the ability to control the data.
Instead of suspending or non-renewing contracts, the cities that use the cameras need to tighten their policies and be more accountable to the public.
Columbus City Council took a half step in the right direction when it decided to keep the license plate readers following pressure to remove them.
Police contend the cameras help keep its citizens safe by tracking down potentially violent criminals, but it hasn’t provided data to support that claim. What has the impact been, exactly? How many people have been arrested and for what alleged crime? Have certain neighborhoods been impacted more?
Columbus should take the lead
That’s where Columbus can take a lead in transparency by releasing program details. The council says it’s having “ongoing discussions” about camera use. About what? Which agencies have access to Columbus data, what information does CPD receive and how does it use it?
And, has the department shared or received data for immigration purposes? Does it know if the data led to getting a violent criminal off the streets?
Police are supposed to use the information to make arrests, so it doesn’t matter to me whether they pick up natural born citizens or immigrants.
It does matter that local officials are transparent with how they share and use the data, and they should report out every month, not every quarter, as departments across the country sometimes do. That’s way too much of a lag, as the Dayton case shows. Police found excess data sharing last October, disabled data sharing outside the state the next month, and the public didn’t know about the problem until this month.
Transparency calms a lot of nerves and forces accountability. That’s what should happen in any city that uses the cameras. Columbus can take the lead.
Ray Marcano is a Columbus Dispatch contributing columnist. The longtime journalist is the former national president of the Society of Professional Journalists, a two-time Pulitzer juror, and a Fulbright fellow.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Columbus must answer question now about ‘Big Brother’ police cameras | Opinion
Reporting by Ray Marcano, Contributed Commentary / The Columbus Dispatch
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
