Pinal County sheriff distinguishes automated license plate readers from Flock cameras
Ross Teeple testified about the two technologies in front of Congress on Wednesday, emphasizing what useful technology ALPRs are but how untrustworthy Flock is.
Pinal County Sheriff Ross Teeple emphasized that there is a difference between automated license plate readers and cameras belonging to Flock Safety. (Photos via Pinal County Sheriff's Office on Facebook and David L. Ryan/The Boston Glove via Getty Images)
(Photos via Pinal County Sheriff's Office on Facebook and David L. Ryan/The Boston Glove via Getty Images)
Pinal County Sheriff Ross Teeple emphasized that there is a difference between automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and cameras belonging to Flock Safety.
Teeple testified about ALPRs and Flock cameras in front of Congress on Wednesday. He told KTAR News 92.3 FM’s The Mike Broomhead Show on Friday that his goal during the testimony was to differentiate between the two and emphasize what useful technology ALPRs are but how untrustworthy Flock is.
“The National Sheriffs Association along with the Major County Sheriffs Association just released a great two-pager … on law enforcement principles for ALPRs. And in that two-pager they say that ALPRs only take a still image of the rear of your license plate. Flock is capturing so much data that it’s actually mind-boggling. And then we don’t know what they’re doing with that data,” Teeple said.
The sheriff announced in August that he would not be renewing his office’s contract with Flock, claiming its cameras were capable of facial recognition, live video streaming and AI-driven pattern recognition that can track residents’ daily movements. The company ended up issuing a rebuttal letter addressed to Teeple, calling his claims a misconception and stating that it never has or will use facial recognition.
However, Teeple noted that Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said during the Senate testimony that he received a written response from Flock where they admitted to tracking people.
“My concern is once we start tracking an individual person everywhere they go, that’s a concern, especially under Carpenter where if my deputies have to get a search warrant, and they do, to put a GPS tracker on a person so they can track them. … They have to go in front of a judge and get a search warrant and provide probable cause and then the judge issues the search warrant,” Teeple explained. “Flock is building a technology database up and they’re not being forthright about what they’re using the technology for.”
He added that currently Pinal County is at a stand still with ALPRs as the board of supervisors voted to revoke the right of way permits for the cameras.
“I’m extremely hopeful that we can locate a company that takes pictures of the rear license plates so we can use those pictures,” Teeple said.
A long list of municipalities and law enforcement agencies have stopped using Flock cameras, restricted data sharing or raised concerns.






Comments
0 Comments