Tonight, the Cumberland Town Council will consider a plan to install Flock surveillance cameras throughout the community, a move that has sparked intense debate and raised serious concerns among residents and civil rights advocates alike.

At first glance, the proposal might seem innocuous, even beneficial. After all, who wouldn’t want to enhance public safety? But a closer look reveals a complex web of issues that go far beyond simple crime prevention, including questions about who truly benefits from this technology and whether the privacy sacrifices are justified.

Cumberland, with its low crime rate, hardly seems like a place in desperate need of increased surveillance. In 2022, the town reported just 19 auto thefts per 100,000 residents, a figure significantly lower than surrounding communities. The overall crime rate in Cumberland stands at a modest 68.1, compared to neighboring cities like Pawtucket (206.7) and Woonsocket (221.2). These statistics beg the question: Is such an invasive surveillance system really necessary in a town where crime is already well under control?

The Flock camera system, touted by its creators as a cutting-edge crime-fighting tool, goes far beyond simple license plate recognition. These devices create a comprehensive record of vehicle movements, capturing not just license plates but also details like vehicle make, model, color, and even identifying features such as bumper stickers or roof racks. This level of detail effectively creates a digital trail of residents’ movements, raising serious privacy concerns.

Proponents of the Flock system often cite its potential to recover stolen vehicles as a primary benefit. However, this argument requires closer scrutiny. While the recovery of stolen vehicles is undoubtedly positive, it’s crucial to consider who benefits most from this outcome. In many cases, it’s not the vehicle owners themselves, but rather auto insurance companies who stand to gain the most financially from recovered vehicles.

Insurance companies bear the brunt of the financial impact when vehicles are stolen, as they’re often required to pay out claims for the full value of the car. By supporting the implementation of surveillance systems like Flock cameras, these companies can potentially reduce their losses significantly. This raises an important question for Cumberland residents: Should the town be investing in a system that primarily benefits corporate interests while compromising the privacy of all citizens?

What’s more alarming is the potential for this data to be shared far beyond Cumberland’s borders. Flock’s business model involves creating a nationwide network of these cameras, allowing law enforcement agencies across the country to access data collected in any participating community. This means that the movements of Cumberland residents could potentially be tracked and analyzed by agencies from coast to coast, without their knowledge or consent.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been vocal in its criticism of such systems. They argue that technologies like Flock cameras have the potential to dramatically shift the balance of power between citizens and the government. The ACLU warns that without proper safeguards, these systems could be used to track individuals’ movements, monitor political activities, or even assist in enforcing laws from other jurisdictions – including those that may conflict with local values or legal standards.

Perhaps most concerning is the lack of independent verification of Flock’s claims. Despite boasting about the superiority of their technology, Flock has consistently refused to allow independent testing of their systems. This reluctance raises red flags about the accuracy and reliability of the technology, especially when errors could lead to dangerous confrontations between police and innocent civilians.

It’s worth noting that Cumberland is not entering this surveillance landscape completely unprepared. In October 2022, the town’s police department received over $340,000 in state funding for body-worn cameras. While body cameras have their own set of privacy implications, they at least serve to record officers during interactions. Flock cameras, on the other hand, offer no such reciprocal benefit to the public.

The push for these cameras also ignores a fundamental principle of American justice: the presumption of innocence. By creating a system that tracks everyone’s movements, regardless of suspicion, we risk treating all citizens as potential criminals. This approach not only undermines civil liberties but also goes against the grain of a free society.

Additionally, the effectiveness of such systems in actually reducing crime is far from proven. Cities that have implemented Flock cameras have seen mixed results, with some even experiencing increases in certain types of crime after installation. This suggests that the hefty price tag associated with these systems – both in terms of financial cost and privacy loss – may not be justified by their outcomes.

As Cumberland considers this proposal, it’s crucial to look at best practices implemented in other states regarding data retention from surveillance cameras. New Hampshire, for example, has set a gold standard for protecting citizen privacy. Their state law requires law enforcement to delete non-hit license plate capture data within three minutes. This approach ensures that the system can still be used for immediate public safety concerns while preventing the creation of a long-term surveillance record of innocent citizens’ movements.

Other jurisdictions have implemented similarly stringent protections. Some limit data retention to 24 hours or less for non-hit plates, while others require deletion as soon as the data has been checked against watchlists. These practices demonstrate that it’s possible to balance the use of technology for legitimate law enforcement purposes with strong protections for civil liberties.

Cumberland should consider adopting similar strict data retention policies if it decides to move forward with the Flock system. At the very least, the town should implement a policy that deletes all non-hit data within 24 hours. Better yet, following New Hampshire’s lead and deleting data within minutes would provide the strongest protection for residents’ privacy.

As Cumberland stands at this crossroads, it’s crucial for residents to make their voices heard. The decision to implement such a far-reaching surveillance system should not be made lightly or without significant public input. Tonight’s Town Council meeting presents a critical opportunity for community members to express their concerns and influence the direction of their town’s future.

For those unable to attend the meeting in person, there are still ways to make an impact. Residents are encouraged to contact their council representatives directly through the town’s official website (https://www.cumberlandri.org/199/Town-Council). By sharing their thoughts and concerns, citizens can play a vital role in shaping the policies that will affect their daily lives.

As we navigate the landscape of modern technology and public safety, it’s essential to remember that once privacy is surrendered, it’s incredibly difficult to reclaim. The decision facing Cumberland tonight is not just about cameras on street corners; it’s about the kind of community we want to live in and the values we choose to uphold.

In the end, the question before Cumberland is this: Is the promise of marginally enhanced security, primarily benefiting insurance companies, worth the cost of pervasive surveillance and diminished privacy? As residents contemplate this issue, they would do well to consider the words often attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The eyes of Cumberland – and indeed, of communities across America grappling with similar issues – will be on tonight’s Town Council meeting. The decision made here could set a precedent for how small towns across the nation balance the allure of technology with the fundamental right to privacy. For the sake of civil liberties and the character of their community, Cumberland residents must stand up, speak out, and ensure their voices are heard in this crucial debate. They should demand, at the very least, that any adopted system includes the strictest possible data retention policies to protect their privacy rights.