The Concord City Council this week unanimously approved spending up to $789,187 for 65 license plate-reading cameras and accompanying software around the city, with the information gathered from the cameras controlled by the police department.
Most East Bay law enforcement departments already use similar systems, and the council made obtaining one a “tier 2 priority” back in April.
Flock Safety’s Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System that analyzes vehicle license plates, state affiliation, and vehicle attributes such as color, type, make and objects (roof rack, bumper stickers, etc.) based on image analytics, not car registration data.
According to a staff report, the cameras run off solar and the technology allows for identification despite partial, missing, temporary or covered plates, and cameras can be installed almost anywhere.
The city wants the system to create a citywide ALPR system and add significant investigative options to help solve and deter crime.
The city’s contract is for 24 months and can be renewed for another 24 months. The system will be ready for use in three to six months.
Gee Concord took you long enough to catch up to the present..
I’m sure they know what areas to cruise in they’ll be towing cars by the hundreds the first week.
I like this idea.
I can already hear the irresponsible people screaming.
That’s always a good sign.
Well now, if software can differentiate bumper stickers can facial recognition be far off ? ? ?
Don’t have the “wrong” bumper sticker or Edi Birsan is coming for you.
City government votes to expand itself. Shocking.
I can’t help but wonder if it would encourage more carjackings. Using stolen plates on the get a way car would be foolish if the technology can get a description of the car.
The contract is up in 24 months and will probably be renewed. So almost 1 million dollars every two years?
This money can be better spent elsewhere like fixing the uplifted side walks. Shame on the Mayor
Agreed, my side walk is looking like a Evel Knievel jump ramp.
Put cameras at the top of railroad and you’ll solve 80% of the crime committed in the Happiest City in America! Put cameras at the on ramp to 24 and you’ll solve another 10%!
Camera data is kept by both the police department and Flock Safety, the camera company. Concord PD said they share the data with Pittsburg PD and Antioch PD, and that Concord PD has no control over who Pittsburg and Antioch share that data with. Concord PD said it may also share data with non-law enforcement organizations like Homeowner’s Associations. We should know what data a HOA is going to be allowed to see and that policy should be in writing. Why should an HOA be allowed to track just anyone? Flock Safety told council they are not under obligation to respond to subpoenas for your data but their own terms of service reserves their right to produce any camera data (not just data related to crimes) as well as to keep data they think may be subject to subpoena for longer than 30 days. Subpoenas can include civil actions like personal injury or contract disputes, not just criminal cases. These cameras collect data on every car and, in addition to the license plate/bumper data, data kept includes individual car travel patterns. The majority of data captured will be related to cars driven by people who have not committed a crime and who are not under suspicion or investigation for committing a crime. Concord City Council refused to adopt a written policy for how data related to people not under suspicion or investigation will be kept private.
Why should the police be able to do surveillance on all individuals every 30 days without justification or policy? Are we living in China?
I do not support constant surveillance, but if you do, there is no reason why these cameras should be allowed to do constant surveillance without a written policy from elected officials to protect the rights of individuals. A written policy does not prevent police from using their cameras, it only attempts to prevent abuse of the data.
Concord PD said at the council meeting on this that they have no evidence the cameras prevent or reduce crime (yes, you can view the officer saying this on video at the city web site). He gave the example that businesses have cameras that are monitored but crimes still happen. If other cities have these cameras, then there is some evidence related to how the cameras help prevent crime depending on crime statistics (many posters on Claycord claim crime is increasing in cities with cameras, which, if true, means the cameras are not preventing crime).
Councilmember McGallian asked how he could track the effectiveness of the cameras and Concord PD said they would be the ones assessing their own use of the camera data and its effectiveness. No oversight of the government entity collecting surveillance data on people without probable cause?
We should not allow the government to initiate surveillance of the people, especially without policy or justification. Public safety does not depend on loss of right to privacy, which is a right under the State of California’s constitution. Any government agency who says safety means loss of privacy is just making an excuse to collect as much of your data indiscriminately as possible. And the desire to use cameras does not override the right to privacy, a balance is required, which Concord City Council and staff is refusing to protect your data. Next state lockdown will they use it to keep you inside?
Okay, lets clear up some of your misunderstandings and misconceptions:
First of all, California Civil Code §§ 1798.29, and 1798.90.5 Regulates the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs.) It establishes regulations on the privacy and usage of automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) data and expands the meaning of “personal information” to include information or data collected through the use or operation of an ALPR system. It also imposes privacy protection requirements on entities that use ALPR information, as defined; prohibit public agencies from selling or sharing ALPR information, except to another public agency, as specified; and require operators of ALPR systems to use that information only for authorized purposes.
California. Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.51 (b) ALPR operators must implement a usage and privacy policy to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties.
The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site. So yes, at some point prior to using ALPR units the City of Concord shall have a written policy.
California Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.55 – A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. So no CPD will not be sharing information with any Home Owners Associations and yes CPD can and will be sharing information with other Law Enforcement agencies both local, State, and Federal.
18 United States Code § 2721 – Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle records: It is for use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions. Information may be released for use in the normal course of business by a legitimate business or its agents, employees, or contractors but only to verify accuracy only for the purposes of preventing fraud by, pursuing legal remedies against, or recovering on a debt or security interest against, the individual. So once again, no CPD will not be sharing information with any Home Owners Associations and Yes they can and will be sharing information with other Law Enforcement agencies both local, State and Federal.
When you are in public it is impossible to expect privacy.
Hope;
Maybe move to a better city?
Nobody will be offended if you leave.
Your ideas are not safe,and neither are you.
Please seek help.I’m not trying to be mean.
@ Janus – The police officer who presented to Council is the one who said Concord PD might decide to share info with HOAs. It is available to view on the city web site. This is why we need a written policy so no one has to guess or rely on assumptions.
They hardly use the ones they have now.
Here is an example of abuse of data. Hertz car company reporting rented cars as stolen with drivers being wrongfully accused and arrested.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hertz-claims-false-arrests/
Perhaps you can explain to me how this is abuse of data?
Hertz made a false report of a stolen vehicle under penalty of perjury (at least in California). The police, unaware that Hertz make a false report, took the report and entered the vehicle into the Stolen Vehicle System (SVS).
A police officer for whatever reason checked the license plate or made a vehicle stop and discovered that the vehicle had been reported as stolen. That Department confirms with agency that put the vehicle into the SVS that the vehicle is in fact still reported as stolen. Once confirmed the driver of the vehicle reported as stolen was taken into custody.
The original agency that placed the vehicle into the SVS as stolen, and the officer and agency that took the suspect into custody all relied on information they received from Hertz the supposed victim.
All the information that law enforcement relied on was provide by the supposed victim, Hertz. How is that systemic abuse of data?!?
I’m all for this. These have helped solved crimes in Lamorinda as they have them scanning criminals cars right when they get off the freeway from Oakland.
Not sure if they alert for stolen vehicles but they can be used if someone reports just a vehicle description they can use the cameras to get the plate and learn where in the city their car has been.
I fully support this and believe this is mandatory in Concord as well as other cities to provide law enforcement another tool in fighting crime.
No competitive procurement. How is this possible?
Of course they are doing this. They don’t have any cops to even cover their beats. They need all the help they can get.
SOCIALISM at its finest
No, Biden is socialism at its finest..
We knew this was coming…. all cities will eventually
Hope J..you’re just not happy unless you’re unhappy about something.
How many potholes would that money fix?
I laugh so hard when people throw around random “isms’. I find that so damn funny it’s great keep it up please.
I am from the government and I am here to make you pregnant!
Perhaps they should invest in license plate making machines. So the repeat offenders in the city jail can learn a trade.
Almost a million of our tax dollars to become a surveillance state, what are we china ! This isn’t freedom
@ Janus – This is not about the right to privacy in public. This about the right of privacy of your information. Concord City Council and Concord PD are intending to collect and aggregate data collected from cameras at 65 locations, data that is not available to the government merely by your presence at a public location. They are not private entities, they are public agencies undertaking surveillance across the city without a written policy to protect information from people without justification for suspicion. The State recognizes the right to privacy of data collected by a government agency.
It isn’t Glenn,a license plate is PUBLIC INFO or they would let you drive with it covered.
Hope seatches for ways to be a victim and be unhappy all the time.
It’s all she knows.
Sharing that the City of Concord’s IT followed up with Flock Safety to clarify if the company could be required to provide stored camera data in response to subpoena. They could, and Council should address this since the majority of data collected and stored will be from people not under suspicion of a crime. Here is the text of the letter from the company which will be added to the meeting item record.
During the City of Concord Council meeting, which took place on August 23, 2022 , there was an open session to discuss approval of a 24-month services agreement with Flock Group Inc (“Flock”) for the installation of
approximately 65 Flock license plate reader cameras.
During the meeting, a Flock representative was asked whether Flock was subject to civil subpoenas, to which the Flock representative misspoke, and stated in part, “No, we are not. As a private company we are not. We
are the stewards of the data. In this case it is owned by the City of Concord and used only for law enforcement purposes.”
At this time, Flock would like to clarify our response to the question. As a private company, Flock is not subject to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, which are typically reserved for law enforcement and government entities. However, Flock is subject to civil and criminal subpoenas. Under our agreements, in the event Flock is legally compelled to comply with a judicial order, subpoena, or government mandate, Flock will provide our customer with notice of the request.
Additionally, under our agreements neither Flock nor any customer may access data for any reason other than a bona fide law enforcement investigation or purpose. Flock does not own and does not sell data.
Kindly let us know if this satisfies the requested information. Our transparency is an essential building block in our company’s success and we welcome any additional clarification needed. Flock prides itself on ethics-driven innovation and a commitment to privacy.
George Orwell predicted this years ago.
Hope Johnson,
I was a bit surprised at the number of license plate photos taken by local police departments.
Pleasant Hill – 11,292,582 (2018)
Brentwood – 12,735,566 (2019)
https://www.cehrp.org/local-fusion-center-collecting-80-million-license-plate-records-annually/