Police standards council recommends new rules on Flock cameras

A law enforcement group that sets police standards in Connecticut recommended stringent new rules Thursday for the deployment and use of a wide range of surveillance technology, including automated license plate readers that have become hugely controversial over the past year.

The Police Officer Standards and Training Council adopted and forwarded to Gov. Ned Lamont a 59-page report likely to be the basis of legislation drafted after the General Assembly returns in January. The legislature’s first effort, a law that takes effect Oct. 1, is both groundbreaking and outdated.

“Our recommendations are advisory and do not override state law,” said Keith Mello, the police chief in Milford and chair of the council. “The report identifies where the technology has outpaced regulation and recommends how to close those gaps.”

The report not only addresses the Flock Safety license plate-reading cameras that have been challenged in Windsor, Milford and other places as invasions of privacy but also unregulated fixed-camera networks and the use of drones that can collect images by air. 

Sen. James Maroney, D-Milford, one of the authors of the digital privacy law that takes effect next week, said the report delivered in response to a request from Lamont in August was thorough and would be the starting point of how the state should further regulate surveillance.

He did not disagree with the sentiment that Connecticut’s new law is both cutting edge and already in need of revisions.

“We are mostly ahead of the curve in terms of legislation and behind the curve in terms of technology,” Maroney said.

Maroney and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, were briefed on the recommendations prior to the meeting, as was the governor. 

“I’m grateful for the work Chief Mello and the rest of the team at POST-C put into this detailed report. I asked for this report after hearing from residents across the state who have raised concerns about privacy related to this technology,” Lamont said in a statement.

The recommendations include limiting the retention of data collected by license plate readers and other sources to seven days, further tightening the 21-day limit set in the new law. 

They also call for greater oversight on access to the data, including two-step logins,  tracking of usage and periodic audits, as well as standards for how many cameras are deployed and the rationales for their locations.

“Connecticut police departments use these systems to find missing and endangered people, identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects and build evidence in homicides, sexual assaults, robberies and other violent crimes,” Mello said. “These cases are real, and there are many.

“So this report does not ask whether the technology works. It asks whether the safeguards around it are strong enough to justify the cost to personal privacy.”

Eric Weiner, who raised alarms in Windsor about the lack of standards regarding the cameras, told the council he was dubious the technology could be adequately regulated.

“I came into this with a very strong belief in regulation and that we can find a path through to address the civil liberties concerns and, at the same time, allow the good technology to move forward,” he said. “My view is completely changed in the last six months.”

Weiner said the report made reasonable recommendations, but it did not address an issue beyond the reach of law enforcement: how the images and data are stored and protected in the cloud.

He noted that the FBI’s personnel records, which he says are stored on a platform used by Flock, were hacked this week.

“If the FBI can’t keep their stuff secure, how can a small town like Windsor?” Weiner said.

The report only lightly addressed cameras used to enforce red lights and speeding.

“Automated traffic enforcement is already tightly regulated, so we say little about it. Drones and fixed video networks are not,” Mello said. “Connecticut law does not govern how police use drones, and it has no framework for fixed video networks.

“In principle, an agency could expand a camera network without limit and keep the footage indefinitely.”

About three quarters of the police departments in Connecticut use fixed license-plate reading cameras, with 1,564 cameras deployed around the state, according to a POST survey. Five communities have at least 51.

Flock is the dominant vendor, responsible for 39.4% of the cameras. Axon, a provider of police body cameras, has 28.3%; Rekor, 24.2%. No other vendor has provided more than 3%.

Paul Melanson, a POST member and chief of police in Farmington, said an epidemic years ago of thieves stealing cars and catalytic converters from suburban driveways fueled demands that police quickly embrace surveillance technology.

Opinion has changed, as the public has grown wary of AI and its ability to amass and synthesize many forms of data. Melanson said Flock cameras have come to symbolize the threats to privacy.

“There’s a little bit of a pendulum here,” Melanson said. “I think with the proper use of them and factual information, I think that this will this will move forward in in a reasonable way.”

Michael P. Lawlor, who was a criminal justice adviser to former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and an influential lawmaker on civil liberty and judicial issues, said he well understands the concerns about privacy coming from the political left and right.

Lawlor often was at conflict with police as a lawmaker on issues, erring on the side of protecting civil liberties, but he said Thursday that simply turning off the Flock cameras probably is not a solution to the broader concerns about technology and privacy.

“I get why all this is very scary. I’m not sure you can just turn it off. The only rational response is to find reasonable ways to regulate,” Lawlor said.

The cameras mounted by Flock and two major competitors, Rekor and Axon, are only small pieces of the technological net that gathers data on movements, consumer habits, employment and other things, most of it collected privately.

“You don’t get to vote on the surveillance state,” Lawlor said. “It already is here.”