By Tommy Acosta
Sedona, AZ — The Sedona City Council through a majority consensus voted 5–1 at its Wednesday, August 13, special meeting, to temporarily shelve a controversial auto license-reading surveillance program, with council members Melissa Dunn, Kathy Kinsella Brian Fultz, Derek J. Pfaf and Pete Furman giving a thumbs down, and Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow supporting the cameras.
Eleven Automated License Plate Readers have already been placed throughout Sedona, and they will be shut down until the city staff can create a vehicle for the public to examine the program and render suggestions as to how it may be implemented with safeguards against data abuse — a process that could take months.
A total of 12 citizens testified at the four-hour informational meeting where city staff, police, and a Flock Group (the surveillance company hired to install and operate the surveillance system) representative presented their case for the surveillance program.
Ten citizens expressed firm opposition to the program, citing privacy issues and threats to individual freedom that could be posed by such a program.
Two members of the audience supported the cameras.
Council members asked numerous questions and acknowledged that the cameras are not supported by the general public and that there are not enough safeguards in place to protect privacy.
Questions were asked of staff as to how the program was installed without council review and community input, though council members and the public did not overtly criticize staff or raise the question of nefarious activity that led to the placement of these cameras, almost in secret.
Yet, no clear explanation was offered by staff as to why and how the hiring of the Flock Group occurred.
Police representatives pointed out the effectiveness of these types of cameras in leading to the arrests of violent criminals and child molesters.
Mayor Scott Jablow defended the program, stating that it could only bring benefit to the community and improve public safety, but was outvoted by the rest of the council members, who wanted to know more and set up a process by which the program could be properly vetted.
For some, it almost appeared the program would be green-lighted at the August 13 meeting by the council despite “overwhelming” community opposition, but the council sided with the citizens who testified against the cameras and their perceived intrusion into the lives of Sedona residents and those who work, play, or shop in town.
One pro-camera speaker tried to convince the council that the opponents who spoke at the meeting did not represent the community-at-large but they failed to convince the council that the community is mostly against it.
Further, the editorial boards of Sedona’s two newspapers have published editorials against the ALPR.
It was the Red Rock News that originally broke the story about the almost-unnoticed installation of the cameras.
Although the council did not criticize city staff for failing to bring up the cameras and discuss them with the council before they were installed without community input, the council admitted that they were all to blame for letting the proposed installation slip through the cracks.
Anti-surveillance speakers also claimed that the Flock Group is aligned with a massive federal AI surveillance program that eventually will lead to a surveillance system that will keep tabs on every person living in America.
Flock Group denied the affiliation.
Staff was directed to step on the gas and set the wheels in motion to revisit the question and come to a speedy resolution.
Mayor Scott expressed his hope that the next meeting on the subject is not too far down the road.
To watch the meeting in it’s entirety, click HERE.
This is an advertisement
1 Comment
Now that’s how Democracy should work. If representatives cannot satisfactorily answer legitimate questions about their own policies then they should be shut down! Apparently FLOCK has a problem justifying itself as having safeguards and proper operating oversight. Shouldn’t be so damned difficult! When the LEIN came out for Law Enforcement to use as a centralized database for all state registrations, law violations/violators and more there were stringent oversight requirements and laws enacted to ensure the person(s) operating it are 100% trained and certified to do so with a full understanding of what they can and cannot do under the law. They must be logged in when using it and logged out when not. Copies of every data request made on it are logged and maintained indefinitely. There are stringent laws that make it a Felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison (not jail). Officers cannot Willy Nilly do searches on things for personal use. Everything run through it must have a legitimate legal and reasonable basis for having done so such as a “wants and warrants check” upon persons violating laws while operating a motor vehicle. It is reasonable for law enforcement officers to check these in order to ensure they know what if any possible threats the person(s) they are dealing with pose to them and if they happen to be wanted for law violations already. It is not reasonable for officers to drive around and run license plates or names through the data base just because. I’ve known many a patrolman who tried abusing the system just to find out where the pretty woman they saw on patrol lives or to find out where their ex’s boyfriend or spouse may live so they could harass them. Those are clear abuses of a law enforcement tool and in nearly every case I am aware of those officers were fired and placed upon the Brady lists for bad cops who under no circumstances should ever work in law enforcement or security ever again. The same type of safeguards must be created and proven effective by FLOCK or any other creators of advanced law enforcement and security technologies before the City, State or even Federal Governments put them into use. I applaud the City for holding the meeting and for having the maturity to accept the fact that they have not even come close to doing those things and have put at least a temporary halt to their plans.