.png)
The Hays County Commissioners Court voted on Tuesday to end the county’s contract with Flock Safety for their License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras, which means that the six Flock cameras currently in operation will be removed within 30 days and plans to add four more cameras will be cancelled. The 3-2 vote reflected a divide on the Court regarding the use of images collected by the cameras, with concerns about the potential misuse of Flock Safety data outweighing support of the cameras as an effective crimefighting tool.
Of the three court members voting to remove the cameras, Judge Ruben Becerra was the most adamant in this opposition, with Commissioners Debbie Gonzales Ingalsbe and Michelle Cohen offering more measured reactions before the vote, stressing that their vote was against the company Flock Safety, not the LPR technology.
Becerra said he was grateful for the clerical error in February which caused a delay in the final vote on the Flock cameras, noting what he views as worrisome developments in the current political climate since then.
“What’s changed is the federal government. Like it or not, it’s very different than the federal government we’ve had in all of our existence. It’s being used in ways that are so different, and that is what has caused concern in privacy and security risks.”
Commissioner Cohen said after re- searching LPR cameras and taking part in discussions about the cameras with Hays County law enforcement officials, she believes that the problem lies with the Flock Safety company and not the cameras themselves. Cohen suggested that Hays County should reach out to other companies that manufacture LPR cameras.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s more about company practices versus the technology,” Cohen said. “I feel any company that the county contracts with needs to uphold what I think are ethical standards of our county, and there’s a lot of fear around these issues at this time … I would like the sheriff ’s department to think about a formal solicitation of this service.
Commissioner Ingalsbe noted that the court had invited Flock Safety to the Tuesday hearing, but the company did not attend. ”Flock was supposed to be here today to make a presentation. Unfortunately, they did not submit their paperwork in time to be on the agenda, and so that presentation has been delayed.”
Ingalsbe agreed with Cohen that the court should research other LPR companies. “I want to also be open to looking at other options. I know that there’s other companies out there that may do the same thing.”
Commissioners Morgan Hammer and Walt Smith, in voting to continue the Flock Safety contract, stressed their support for the decision by the Hays County Sheriff ’s Office to chose Flock as their LPR camera vendor.
“I definitely listen to all sides of everything, every story that was sent to me, I watch, I listen,” said Hammer, “but at the end of the day. I’m going to back our sheriff ’s office …. I won’t compromise public safety.”
Commissioner Walt Smith said the choice of LPR cameras should be left up to the law enforcement branches using them, not the Commissioner’s Court.
”I’m not going to tell my law enforcement what tools they need and don’t need, because they’re the ones who are building that house of public safety here in Haynes County, and I’m going to be supportive of them in that effort,” Smith said.
A vote against Flock is not a vote against local law enforcement, countered Becerra.
“Some folks are creating these binary options, false decisions. If you vote for this, you’re pro police. If you vote against it, you’re not. Well, there’s nothing more ridiculously limiting than that statement, because here we all are all pro police, and yet you can feel the tone in the room that this tool, of the millions of tools that are available … our citizenry does not feel comfortable with” Opposition to Flock has been gaining momentum in this area amidst growing concerns about the privacy of the data. On Oct. 9, Lockhart City Council voted 6-1 to reject an agreement with Flock Group for seven cameras, following a presentation by police staff and two Flock representatives.
San Marcos resident Amy Kamp, Communications Director for the advocacy group Ground Game Texas, spoke against Flock Safety and LPR cameras at both the Lockhart city council meeting and the Commissioners Court on Tuesday. She stressed that she believes privacy concerns are concerning not just for Flock but for all LPR providers.
“When people learn about this company and its documented abuses, and when they learn about the violation of privacy that this type of network of the LPRs represents, regardless of the company providing the service, they do not like it. Many people in this country value their constitutional rights. They value the right to some reasonable measure of privacy. They don’t want to be constantly stalked by cameras and databases.”
The Mano Amiga Action organization has also been actively lobbying against the use of LPR cameras in this area. In a statement released on Tuesday after the Commissioner’s Court meeting, Executive Director Eric Martinez, said, “This is a victory for every resident who spoke out against being watched, tracked, and treated like a suspect in their own community. Flock built its empire on selling fear. But people here saw through it. We refused to trade our freedom for a false sense of security.”
Hays County Sheriff Anthony Hipolito said, “It’s very disappointing that a vital tool used by our agency every single day was taken away from us based on half truths and just flat out lies. … “The flock technology is not mass surveillance. Flock cameras simply take a picture of a vehicle and a license plate and a snapshot in time. It doesn’t actively track a vehicle.” For the Daily Record’s full interview with Sheriff Hipolito about Flock cameras, see our Wednesday edition.
Wimberly resident and former US Marshall Tyler Owen expressed his support for the Flock cameras in a letter to the court.
“In my two decades of experience, I have seen how a system like Flock saves lives and solves crimes,” Owen said. “Every minute counts in an investigation, and this technology gives law enforcement a critical advantage when time and information are limited.”
