Columbus police and other law enforcement agencies are facing heightened scrutiny for their use of a national network of AI-powered cameras that read license plates and collect other information.
But many of the Flock cameras drawing public ire on utility poles around Columbus aren’t relegated to the public right of way. Dozens of private entities share their own data with Columbus police.
As part of the Flock network, Columbus Police receive data from over 50 stores, hotels, apartment complexes, homeowners’ associations and organizations. The list includes Kroger, Lowe’s, Easton Town Center and JewishColumbus.
Those private enterprises are part of a dwindling list of agencies sharing with the Columbus Division of Police as it pares back its use of Flock.
The division was once part of the national network of Flock cameras, linking thousands of law enforcement agencies around the country with surveillance data from automatic license plate-reading cameras. After scrutiny arose about the potential use with immigration enforcement, police scaled back the scope to only share data with specific agencies.
The Dispatch reached out to more than a dozen businesses, apartment management companies and organizations for comment. Most did not respond, but a spokesperson for Jewish Columbus confirmed that there is a network of cameras at “Jewish community properties and are positioned only to capture vehicles entering or exiting those properties” positioned out of view of public roadways.
Adina Pollack added that local law enforcement “are the first responders to antisemitic incidents and other criminal activity” and that Flock camera access has helped identify people trespassing and making hate-related threats at Jewish institutions. The cameras can also alert security if “a known individual of concern” is spotted.
“We view the Flock system as an integral part of our effort to ensure the safety and security of the Jewish community. We look forward to a time when these measures are not necessary,” Pollack said.
Another representative from JewishColumbus declined to share the other 12 agencies that JewishColumbus shares data with, as well as the amount of cameras and approximate locations in its network, citing security reasons.
Columbus police Sgt. Joe Albert said in an email that organizations initiate the voluntary sharing of surveillance data. Police can access footage if the sharing request is approved, but the organizations do not have access to police data.
The Flock searches are done to find “photos of suspect vehicles, verify descriptions, establish timelines for criminal offenses, and assist in criminal investigations,” Albert said.
He added that when officers are making searches within the Flock system, there is no differentiation between private and public data.
“The private data has been shared with CPD with the understanding that it will be used for law enforcement purposes, and that all sources we have access to are subject to the same requirement: They must be used only for law enforcement purposes,” Albert said.
Paris Lewbel, a spokesperson for Flock, said that privately installed cameras can opt into sharing with specified law enforcement, but cannot share data directly onto the national network. Also, private customers cannot access law enforcement data and information.
The department doesn’t track whether successful Flock results came from public or private cameras, but he said there are “numerous” examples of private Flock cameras assisting investigations. That includes identifying and charging a “juvenile ‘crime group’” using stolen vehicles to commit other crimes, identifying suspects from a physical jewelry store robbery and identifying a shooting suspect.
Experts say accountability is necessary
Terrance Hinton, a professor at Ohio State University who specializes in criminal justice reform, said that as surveillance increases, accountability and governance should also increase. Private cameras add another layer of privacy concerns, since people may not be aware that information about their cars is being captured where they live or shop.
Hinton said he understands concerns about privacy, but the technology can be a “double-edged sword” and could help locate stolen property or missing people more quickly.
“The technology is going so fast it’s hard to keep up with, ‘Wait a minute, before we do this, can we look at all of the positive and negative implications of this? what are the unintended consequences?’ I don’t think we’re quite there yet,” Hinton said.
Dave Maass, the director of investigations at the nonprofit digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in an interview with The Dispatch that the rising prevalence of private cameras in the Flock network circumvents the democratic process and creates an “even bigger” surveillance state by blurring the lines between public and private.
“There’s isn’t a public process usually where you can go online and see the privacy policy, there isn’t a civilian oversight board you can go to complain to if the data is misused,” Maass said about private Flock cameras. “There’s a lot less accountability and transparency involved.”
Flock cameras and police surveillance systems have been coming under increasing scrutiny both locally and nationally in recent months. Columbus City Council hosted a tense public hearing Aug. 10 to discuss Flock.
Anna Lynn Winfrey covers regional/suburban trending news for The Columbus Dispatch. She can be reached at awinfrey@dispatch.com.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: More than 50 private Flock cameras feed data to Columbus police
Reporting by Anna Lynn Winfrey, Columbus Dispatch / The Columbus Dispatch
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Anna Lynn Winfrey, Columbus Dispatch | USA TODAY Network
