Residents of Cheviot Hills, a wealthy neighborhood in West L.A., took matters into their own hands when faced with a surge in burglaries last year. The community decided to combat the issue by investing over $200,000 in cutting-edge surveillance technology. This technology came in the form of controversial high-tech cameras equipped with automated plate readers capable of scanning license plates.
The decision to donate these plate-scanning cameras to the Los Angeles Police Foundation, a nonprofit supporting the LAPD, came with specific conditions. The police were restricted to using the cameras solely within the confines of Cheviot Hills. This act of charity stirred up a debate surrounding the control and deployment of donated technology within law enforcement agencies and the potential broader applications of the data collected.
The Los Angeles Police Foundation, an organization that has been funneling money from undisclosed donors to the LAPD for over 25 years, found itself at the center of this controversy. LAPD Deputy Chief John McMahon raised concerns about the limitations imposed on the use of the cameras and the specific contractor chosen for the acquisition of the plate readers. The foundation’s decision to source the cameras from Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based startup, raised further objections from McMahon, leading to internal complaints and allegations of bias.
McMahon emphasized the importance of law enforcement agencies having full control over the data they collect, ensuring it is used within legal boundaries. The compatibility of the Flock cameras with the LAPD systems, including data storage and access, posed challenges compared to existing equipment from major companies like Motorola Solutions and Axon. The differing data policies of Flock prompted scrutiny and raised questions about data security and privacy.
Holly Beilin, a spokesperson for Flock Safety, defended the company’s transparency and compliance with data-sharing laws, highlighting the availability of its source code to LAPD users. Beilin emphasized that Flock cameras have been instrumental in solving crimes in the Los Angeles metro area and reassured that the company adheres to legal regulations governing the sharing of license plate data.
The dispute surrounding the Flock cameras prompted the LAPD’s civilian oversight panel to delve deeper into the department’s strategy for deploying plate readers across the city. With an extensive network of cameras already in place, questions arose about the criteria for stationing the devices and the influence of external donors on these decisions. The Cheviot Hills donation bypassing standard procurement policies added another layer of complexity to the situation.
The Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association defended their choice of Flock Safety based on recommendations and consultations with various stakeholders, prioritizing crime prevention over privacy concerns. The association’s proactive approach to addressing rising crime rates in the neighborhood resonated with residents and local authorities, leading to the approval of the Flock cameras by the City Council.
While crime statistics show an increase in burglaries in Cheviot Hills, overall crime rates in the neighborhood remain relatively low compared to other parts of the city. Despite the perception of escalating crime rates, license plate readers have become a ubiquitous tool in law enforcement, raising concerns about privacy, data security, and potential biases in policing practices.
Civil liberties groups and activists continue to advocate for stricter regulations on surveillance technology, citing risks of false positives, outdated data, and unauthorized data sharing. The lack of formal agreements between law enforcement agencies and technology providers like Flock raises red flags about data security and potential misuse by federal authorities.
The contentious placement of plate readers in affluent neighborhoods like Cheviot Hills has sparked debates about surveillance, community policing, and social equity. Critics argue that the focus on high-income areas perpetuates disparities in surveillance practices, prompting questions about the fairness and transparency of law enforcement tactics.
Despite assurances from police officials like LAPD Det. Alan Hamilton that the department’s primary focus remains on solving crimes, concerns about mass surveillance and privacy violations persist. As technology continues to evolve and shape law enforcement strategies, the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights remains a crucial topic of debate in communities across the country.
