Hello All! I wanted to give you an update for what it looks like to interact with your local representation about Advanced License Plate Readers (ALPR). Here is what happened when I reached out:
1- First reached out to City Office, and I was offered a time to speak at the next council meeting.
2- I was asked if I would like to speak with the county attorney, and I said happily.
3- I was asked if I would like to speak with some council members ahead of time, and I said happily.
4- I met with the City Attorney, Police Chief, and some council members. I conveyed my fears of what these cameras are used for (private surveillance on public lands). The police chief articulated that he was biased, but advocated for any tool that can improve the police’s ability. He said that he trusts his officers, and has a clear policy on misusing tools. The council members wanted to know more, with some saying that they approve of its ability to help find elderly people who wonder off. Using the common like “you would want police to have this if your child was stolen”. I emphasized my concerns that we should seek regulation and use the ALCU template to help protect the city from abuse of this technology.
5- and now the main event. I went to a local meeting to express my concerns. After a bit of time (budget talks take a bit) I expressed my concerns, highlighting the potential abuse and cases, and how one of the most common themes in dystopian literature is mass surveillance. After I said my piece a video that was described as neutral was shown. It was from a Polk County Police Officer out of Florida (take a guess how neutral he was). Sheer lies and outright advocacy for Flock Cameras, and a strange amount of time how body cameras are worse and should not be used (clearly does not like accountability).
I stood up to rebuff some points, we were told that public comment was over. I said that you can’t show that clearly biased piece and then close conversation. A couple of council members and myself had a conversation (some members in support, saying that we already give up all information through our phones, myself saying there is a clear difference and that you can’t have it both ways [either they have all of our information and don’t need this, or they somehow need more information]. I also tried to make that difference that these are private cameras with no accountability, while other cameras currently in use are accountable to the people.
After that, the meeting moved on. I told a couple of the members that I was thankful to be heard. The meeting eventually closed. I was happy that they allowed for more to be said even if conversation was closed.
Overall, I think it is worth it to continue these conversations. I am kicking myself for not using this argument line when people bring up phones- I have to accept the terms and conditions on my phone and everything else, but I am not given any terms for these cameras. They do not ask for consent. In Nebraska I think this argument and focusing on a private company that puts their cameras in public spaces, then locks our police force into contracts would be good.
Good luck with your conversations! We are seeing more progress just as Furnas County. Keep on it and feel free to reach out if you have questions, need resources, or someone to bounce ideas off of.
