With the constant advancements of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and technology, it was only a matter of time before using AI to help with crime and security would become a regular thing. One of the most controversial uses would be Flock cameras.
Flock cameras are Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), powered by AI that capture and analyze data on roads and in neighborhoods. Conceptually, these cameras don’t sound like a bad thing if they are being used to catch criminals more easily and help law enforcement with crimes. However, the already existing distrust in AI leaves people to have a less supportive view of these cameras.
The fact of the matter is this: AI being used for surveillance of neighborhoods is strange—it’s the type of stuff you would expect to see in a dystopian future. It is not a “Big Brother is always watching” situation, yet that does not mean there is nothing to worry about.
Neighborhoods in New Hampshire have stricter laws that prevent these types of cameras from being set up, but they still exist within the state. Portsmouth, N.H. operates about 140-150 of them within a local network.
The reasoning behind this is due to RSA Section 261:75-b, which restricts the technology to purely law enforcement and has a mandatory three-minute data deletion rule for non-matches. This means that if a Flock camera analyzes you or your vehicle and you are not who they are looking for, your data is forced to be deleted from the system within three minutes.
Despite how New Hampshire handles it, not every state follows the same guidelines when it comes to these cameras.
A sad part of something with good intention is that it usually has the capacity to be abused by irresponsible people. In the case of these cameras, there has been evidence of abusing them by law enforcement in other states.
Police officers have been reported using these cameras to stalk ex-girlfriends, and a sheriff’s office in Texas even used it to track a woman who may have had an abortion. These types of acts have led to citizens of their respective towns and cities to begin to vandalize and destroy these cameras; in fact, Flock cameras have been vandalized in at least 36 states.
Privacy is something that, so long as it is not in harm to others, should be given to everybody. But the fact that you could simply be going about your day and get your data taken for being in the wrong place at the wrong time can ruin your life so easily is an unsettling thought.
With this much resistance to these types of cameras and security, you would think it would be much more obvious a choice on where to continue. But law enforcement will continue to try and make crime easier to handle, even if it is at the cost of the privacy of the American people.
Michael Ardita can be contacted at
mardita@kscequinox.com
