Police surveillance technology needs proper accountability

Implemented under the guise of assisting law enforcement, automatic license plate reader (ALPR) devices have in the last few years popped up around the Madison area and Dane County. These small black cameras—often hoisted onto a light pole alongside a small solar panel— are capable of relaying information to an AI-monitored database. They were first installed on Dane County roads through a 2022 pilot program with the Dane County Sheriff’s Office.

Since then, these devices have proliferated across the county and even within the borders of the City of Madison. (While the City does not operate any Flock cameras, they are still present throughout the area.) The growing presence of these surveillance systems signals a troubling pattern of Wisconsin police agencies doubling down on harmful policies. 

From the UW-Madison Police Department (UWPD) weaponizing the open-records request process when pressed to release body camera footage, to the Dane County Sheriff’s Office’s (DCSO) attempt to deny the people in Dane County Jail access to their physical mail, cops in Wisconsin don’t appear to be as concerned with preserving people’s security as they are with expanding their jurisdiction.

The development of ALPR contracts is symptomatic of a pervasive mentality that considers constant surveillance to be the pinnacle of safety. Despite its questionable practices which have pushed some cities to dissolve partnerships, the Atlanta-based surveillance company, Flock Safety, has managed to plant its fleet of products across the country. An analysis by the Wisconsin Examiner found that 221 police agencies in the state have access to the company’s problematic handling of data. 

Evading accountability

These partnerships bring ALPR cameras into Madison’s streets, and leave residents exposed to privacy risks that Flock has created, and which the company can’t bother to take accountability for. Arguments in favor of this tech fall back on a pretty condescending stance, claiming these devices’ functions are more nuanced than the misinformed paranoia of dissenters distorting what mass surveillance actually looks like. In practice, however, claims that federal immigration enforcement has no way to access Flock data, or that the system’s guardrails are enough to prevent misuse, just don’t hold up. 

Flock also denies any fault in the numerous instances of police officers accessing its devices to track people who were not under investigation, including in Milwaukee and Greenfield. Local Flock partners like UWPD have only recently begun an overdue transparency campaign following community pressure.

Amidst these glaring shortcomings, a recent post on Flock’s blog assessed that the negative public opinion toward Flock cameras is “not because the technology failed, but because public trust was strained by broader political debates.”

Even if disapproval of Flock systems really is just the result of some overarching political push to turn the masses against constant AI-surveillance, the company hasn’t done itself any favors in trying to reframe this narrative—whether it’s fumbling a deal with Amazon-owned Ring following a creepy Super Bowl advertisement, or CEO Garrett Langley describing those who oppose the company’s goals as “terroristic.” In Verona, the local government has resorted to physically covering the cameras when Flock reportedly became unresponsive after the city decided to cancel its partnership. 

Creating lasting resistance

Grassroots movements like Deflock Dane are mobilizing community members concerned with the proliferation of unchecked surveillance tech. 

Deflock Dane has raised local awareness by encouraging people to document these cameras through Deflock.me, a project that is crowdsourcing Flock camera locations to map the spread of this tech. This organization has also obtained a number of contracts outlining the paper trail of Flock partnerships between agencies, like the UWPD, DCSO, and the Capitol Police through open-records requests. Their site includes a request template that encourages community members to take the initiative and seek information on the spread of Flock products in Madison. 

As public scrutiny mounts pressure against any person or institution collaborating with Flock, demands shouldn’t just stop at removing these ALPRs. We need to push for a comprehensive and lasting policy of transparency. In the same way police agencies take a mile whenever an inch of privacy is exchanged for the sake of safety, the community must drag the conversation back to demanding explicit policies from the agencies employing this technology. This will also open the opportunity for a wider conversation about who defines safety, and if it’s really worth funneling our tax dollars toward faulty AI surveillance instead of services for people who are actively in need.

The only surveillance we need to keep each other safe is community surveillance on these technologies to ensure residents are informed of their presence. A number of Flock contracts with Dane County agencies are reaching their term this year, including the Village of Maple Bluff Police Department this month and the Wisconsin State Capitol Police in June. Dane County residents have an opportunity to reach out to their representatives and show up to their local councils to make their opposition heard to prevent Flock from continuing to expand its gaze over our streets.