More from The Grand Canyon State:
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said she will conduct a review of the state’s use of Flock cameras and other automatic license plate readers.
This summer, several Arizona local governments have either ended their contracts with Flock or adjusted their policies with the company.
Mayes said her analysis will consider how Flock cameras are being used, the impact they are having on Arizonans’ privacy and possible Fourth Amendment violations.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Richie Taylor, communications director for the attorney general, said Arizona towns and cities “have been grappling with these questions on their own, and that’s part of why this review is needed.”
“Issues of constitutional rights and privacy are too great to be decided in isolation at the local level. Attorney General Mayes believes these are questions that deserve a coordinated, statewide approach,” Taylor told The Center Square.
Needless to say, Satan’s representative is right on it:
Paris Lewbel, a spokesperson for Flock, said the company’s license plate readers “capture still, point-in-time images of vehicles in public view.”
“Agencies own and control their data, access is limited to authorized users, every search requires a documented reason, and each search creates a permanent audit trail,” Lewbel told The Center Square.
“More than 40 courts across the country have determined that fixed license plate readers do not violate the Fourth Amendment and cannot track the whole of an individual’s movements,” he added.
Lewbel said misuse of Flock technology is “completely unacceptable,” noting when it does occur, the company believes “accountability matters — including in the cases Arizona agencies are currently reviewing.”
Oh sure. Here’s a newsflash: the fucking courts don’t decide what is or is not a Constitutional abridgement: the People decide, not the courts and especially not law enforcement. And we’ve decided we don’t like being spied upon. A few stolen cars being retrieved doesn’t counterbalance the Fourteenth Amendment, just as a few gun accidents don’t counterbalance the Second.
So there’s one simple response to all that glib claptrap: FOAD, you and your godless, snooping company.
As I have said before, the problem isn’t the cameras (as people have been pointing CCTV cameras at roads a long time and no one cares). They are correct roads are a public place.
The problem is the database. There is no level of government that has the right to track you everywhere you go. However, this may require additional legislation to fix, and we should go after speed and light cameras.
“Agencies own and control their data, access is limited to authorized users, every search requires a documented reason, and each search creates a permanent audit trail,” Lewbel told The Center Square.”
And that, boys and girls, is why nothing bad could possibly happen. It’s not like some jealous LEO, intent on finding out where his ex is going or who she’s going there with, can’t possibly search her license number over 240 times and find out exactly where she’s been and when she’s been there. Certainly, no problem there, or in any of the reported dozens upon dozens of incidents across the nation where similar “limited” accesses have occurred.
Then there’s Mayes, who is oh-so busy reviewing the situation. Cities, towns, and counties across Arizona are deciding to bag and remove the Flock systems, but Mayes is busy trying to determine what direction the political winds are blowing. Might she also be trying to see if Flock might be inclined to contribute to her re-election campaign? The world wonders.
As to Vonz-90’s comment above, there are currently 116 operational data center facilities here in Arizona, 8 more under construction, and another 36 planned or approved. How many of them are being filled with data from Flock cameras? The world should wonder about that, too.