Auburn city lawmakers continue to struggle with the issue of the routine surveillance of citizens using cameras from Flock Safety. For several months, members of the City Council have debated whether to keep or get rid of cameras from Flock that gather and store information about the movements of people through the city by reading their license plates.
Flock has been under immense pressure because of allegations of inadequate protections against the misuse of its data. There are several dozen known cases of digital stalking, where police used the system to track romantic partners or ex-partners. Privacy and civil rights experts say the controls on data security have been weak. Flock this month announced stronger restrictions on the use of data.
Cameras from Flock and other security camera companies are in every city in Central New York. Syracuse just ended its contract with Flock and moved to another vendor, Axon.
Against that backdrop, Auburn lawmakers have been trying to decide what to do. At its last meeting, the discussion centered on a moratorium so they could study the issue and write new rules.
Councilor Christina Calarco wants to cancel the Flock contract.
'It didn't follow our policies and protocols," Calarco said. "I don't believe it was nefarious or done to trick anybody. We didn't understand that technology at the time, even if it was introduced to us and explained who the company was. But that being said, it doesn't mean that we can skip protocol. We have to do it."
Councilor Craig Diego wants a public vote instead of just getting rid of cameras.
"I'm not comfortable with going ahead and just getting rid of it, because as we've seen, we've just wasted six months going back and forth getting to this point, trying to get this done," Diego said. It's not fair to the police department or anybody else to just get rid of it without something in place. I'd like to see something in place."
Mayor Jimmy Giannettino acknowledged the root of the issue: The state gave local governments money to set up these camera networks before anyone knew how it all would work and where the problems were.
"Just another example of the state jumping in the pool without ever taking a swimming lesson in their life," Giannettino said. "They made hundreds of thousands of dollars available to police agencies across the state. And I do believe it's well-intentioned. That could be spent on a technology that isn't completely understood and is not regulated.
Bills to regulate police cameras are pending in the state Legislature but there’s no guarantee they will pass. That could leave local governments to figure out, starting at its next meeting, a local law that balances public safety and freedom from surveillance, data privacy and data access.
