The $7.5 billion surveillance company Flock Safety is operating in 49 states and over 5,000 communities, but the residents of Scarsdale, NY, are fighting back.
Read the full article at DropsiteNews
Summary of Flock’s Surveillance System Controversy in Scarsdale, NY
Quick Overview
Flock Safety, a $7.5 billion surveillance technology company, has expanded its reach to over 5,000 communities across 49 states, including Scarsdale, NY. Following a covert decision by the Scarsdale Village Board to adopt a $2.1 million contract with Flock, residents are raising concerns about mass surveillance and lack of public input, igniting a fierce debate over privacy and governmental transparency.
Key Points
- Surveillance Expansion: Flock Safety’s technology, including automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) and live-view cameras, is now implemented in many U.S. communities, often without public knowledge or input.
- Public Outcry in Scarsdale: Residents reacted strongly after learning about the Flock contract, emphasizing the need for transparency and public discussion on such significant issues.
- Legal Concerns: Critics argue that the contract violates New York State laws regarding competitive bidding and public input, with some residents questioning the legitimacy of the board’s decision-making process.
- Potential Misuse of Data: The technology raises alarms about civil liberties, including the presumption of innocence, with fears that it could be misused for unauthorized surveillance or targeting individuals.
- Community Mobilization: The controversy has mobilized residents to voice their concerns at board meetings, highlighting a growing demand for accountability from local officials.
Detailed Breakdown
Surveillance Technology and Its Implications
Flock Safety provides municipalities with surveillance technology, including ALPRs and interconnected cameras, which critics argue can lead to a form of “persistent surveillance.” Former NSA employee Charles Seife warned that such systems allow for retroactive surveillance, potentially undermining citizens’ rights. He stated, “These systems are immensely popular with politicians and law enforcement, even though they do real and palpable damage to the citizenry.”
Lack of Transparency and Public Input
The Scarsdale Village Board’s decision to adopt the Flock contract occurred during a private meeting, with residents unaware of the implications until after the fact. Josh Frankel, a concerned resident, expressed frustration over the board’s lack of communication, stating, “Why was it so time sensitive? Why did it need to happen without proper notice?” This sentiment was echoed by others who criticized the absence of a competitive bidding process, which is typically expected for public contracts in New York.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
Local attorney Robert Berg pointed out that the board’s approval of the Flock contract likely violates state law regarding sole source contracts, which typically require a competitive bidding process. He expressed disbelief that four attorneys on the board would support such a decision without proper justification. The board’s reliance on the police chief’s recommendation without further scrutiny has also been criticized.
Community Response and Mobilization
The backlash from residents has been significant, with many attending village board meetings to voice their opposition. Joanne Wallenstein, a local blogger, played a crucial role in informing the community about the contract, stating, “They did everything so fast, with no public comment.” The growing awareness has led to a concerted effort among residents to demand accountability and transparency from their elected officials.
Notable Quotes & Data
- Charles Seife: “The system that Scarsdale wishes to implement is extremely dangerous… The records are kept for several weeks.”
- Josh Frankel: “The way I see it, it is not a matter of if this data will be abused and misused, only a matter of when and by whom.”
Context & Implications
The situation in Scarsdale reflects broader national concerns regarding privacy, surveillance, and government transparency. As surveillance technology becomes more prevalent, the need for public discourse and regulatory frameworks to protect civil liberties becomes increasingly urgent. The outcome of this controversy may set important precedents for how similar contracts are handled in the future, potentially influencing the balance between public safety and individual rights.
d individual rights.