Council seeks citywide surveillance tech policy
As part of ongoing discussions about Waltham’s use of Flock Safety license plate reader technology, the Ordinances and Rules committee invited Waltham Police Chief Kevin O’Connell and his team to its meeting last week.
In response to public concern about the use of Flock cameras, the committee had asked the Law Department in December to draft legislation regulating the use of surveillance technology.
The Law Department recommended that the city consider a non-binding resolution instead of an ordinance. This would avoid imposing constraints on city departments that come from a fully enforceable ordinance. It would also protect the city from potential litigation, according to the Law Department.
As a result, City Council President and Ward 9 Councilor Robert G. Logan introduced a resolution draft at the Tuesday meeting to address the issue and help the Law Department set a policy for all city departments to follow regarding surveillance technology.
It includes a key provision that the mayor and/or department head should submit to the City Council any proposed surveillance technology use for review and comment prior to implementation. The draft will be sent to the Law Department for review and input by May 18.
Regarding the WPD’s use of Flock, O’Connell said the department already has a strong policy in place. “We’re using Flock as a tool for a criminal investigation, on a specific plate tied to that investigation. Only our detective bureau has access to it.”
In order to get information from the portal, detectives need to provide an incident number, a reason for requesting the information and a licence plate number.
O’Connell said Detective Captain Timothy Maher oversees a monthly auditing process, which shows every inquiry made to WPD’s Flock information portal. The monthly audit is reviewed to make sure everything checks out.
The committee and O’Connell discussed the possibility of publishing a statistical report based on monthly audit results for posting on the WPD website, noting that input from the Law Department is needed.
O’Connell shared examples with the committee of how the Flock system has been used in criminal investigations including:
- A resident reported that a friend took his vehicle without his consent. Detective James McMeekin used Flock cameras to narrow down an area where the suspect frequented and located the car. It was returned to the owner in 24 hours.
- Detective Jorge Orta used Flock cameras to identify a vehicle used in a theft at BJ’s Wholesale Club. It was discovered that the suspect was wanted by the FBI for a bank robbery. He was taken into custody.
- Detective Linda Moschner needed to locate a suspect that had several felony warrants for domestic violence, said to be in the Lowell or Tewksbury area. She used the Flock system to locate the vehicle and passed the information on to Tewksbury police, who made the arrest.
- Waltham detectives assisted Mass State Police and Brookline Police in locating a vehicle that was involved in the Brown University shooting and MIT professor murder in Brookline. The vehicle passed through Waltham and was seen on the city’s Flock cameras.
Related stories
- Town hall on Flock cameras and Waltham Common event time limit draws passionate community voices
- Law Department suggests non-binding resolution to address concerns over surveillance technology
- Who watches the watchers? City to consider first-ever rules on surveillance technology
- Waltham police chief attends Committee of the Whole to discuss Flock Safety cameras
- Our data, our decisions: Why Waltham residents must have a voice on surveillance
- Flock cameras come under scrutiny
Author
Comments (4)
Comments are closed.
What Flock does with the info is why other cities and towns are getting rid of it.
1. A resolution allowing the City Council only to “review and comment” on the implementation of surveillance systems would be toothless. Waltham residents are clearly deeply concerned about the potential for harm from this intrusion on the freedom of people to move around our town with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and our councilors must be equipped with the authority to represent and protect our interests over the preferences of any individual official or department.
2. Procedures limiting the Police Department’s access and use of the surveillance camera data are appropriate, but that doesn’t address the obvious concern about Flock’s access and long-term maintenance of the data, regardless of who “owns” it, and the potential for it being used for other purposes or shared with third parties : Flock’s current or future corporate partners, clients, or government agencies—whether willingly or otherwise.
3. After the Law Department has reported on what can and can’t be done legally, the Council and city residents should have an opportunity to discuss this matter openly and thoroughly, and decide together what “safety” means, what’s in our best interests, and what’s right for Waltham.
“The Law Department recommended that the city consider a non-binding resolution instead of an ordinance. This would avoid imposing constraints on city departments that come from a fully enforceable ordinance. It would also protect the city from potential litigation, according to the Law Department.” Why should the city be protected from litigation for violating citizens’ rights? Why shouldn’t rules for data use be fully enforceable? What is wrong with “imposing restraints on city departments”? What is the point of a “non-binding resolution” with no teeth? How do we know this data won’t be shared with the federal government?
While it is good that WPD only will use the data as it pertains to a specific plate , what about the fact that the Flock company collects all this data without any regulation?