Manchester weighs Flock camera alternatives ahead of Vermont ban on automated license plate readers

MANCHESTER — At Tuesday night’s selectboard meeting, members heard an update from Chief of Police James Blanchard about the town’s current contract with Flock, maker of the controversial automatic license plate recognition system, set to expire in March and what steps the town should or could reasonably make from a law-enforcement perspective in light of a new state statute. Vermont is set to enact 23 V.S.A. § 1609 on July 1, 2027, which says, “No State agency or department or any political subdivision of the State shall use automated license plate recognition systems or automated traffic law enforcement systems.”

The town had previously paused the use of the Flock system pending a review by the Agency of Transportation since the cameras were initially meant to be used for work-zone traffic safety, not as a policing tool more broadly. The town resumed their use in February of this year after assurances from Transportation Secretary Joe Flynn that the town’s current camera use fell within the existing law, following consultation with the Department of Public Safety confirming that data gathered by such systems is not promulgated. 

The upcoming July legislation, though, means that Manchester will likely lose the ability to use any automated license plate recognition system. Chief Blanchard has publicly expressed concern over the loss of the tool. But given the town’s soon-to-expire Flock contract, the legislation set for July and the possibility of changes to the law before then, Blanchard is trying to navigate a reasonable way forward that is centered on researching possible alternative systems.

In an Oct. 15 email to Town Manager Scott Murphy, Blanchard outlined some of his concerns.

“Before the Town makes a significant investment in any replacement system, I think it would be worthwhile to obtain updated guidance from the State on how they interpret Section 1609 and whether any automated license plate reader system would still be permitted after that date,” he said.

“(M)y preference would be to continue researching alternatives over the next few months so we can make an informed decision before the renewal comes due,” adding that “(m)y concern is simply that we’ve found the automated license plate reader to be a valuable investigative tool, and I’d like to avoid losing that capability altogether if there’s another solution that better fits the Board’s expectations and remains legally viable.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Blanchard described the current state of his research into possible alternatives. One alternative his team is looking into is the Unify Camera System.

“That’s actually the camera system that we currently use on the public safety building,” he said. “(They’re) the cameras that are around the exterior of our building. So we’re familiar with it. One of the reasons that it’s appealing is that it has the potential to store all of the data locally on town-owned equipment, rather than a vendor-managed cloud, which addresses mainly the primary concern that we had heard.”

Blanchard outlined some of the “hiccups” that would come with adopting the Unify system, including potential cost, how data would be transmitted to the in-house server and whether the system could offer the capability Blanchard is seeking. A second challenge would be how the cameras are powered. Currently, Flock cameras use solar power. Blanchard expressed a preference for a system that was hardwired and would need additional research to know if that would be possible with Unify.

Whatever the town decides to do, Blanchard reiterated his desire to find a tool that would approximate the same policing capabilities within the expected legislative changes.

“We’re certainly not looking to continue our relationship with Flock past March, but I would like to focus on finding an alternative because it is an extremely valuable resource from a public safety standpoint,” he said.

“I think it’s just trying to find the fine line and the balance between the concerns that we’ve heard as far as respecting privacy, and focusing on public safety,” said Blanchard, “and I’m hopeful that there is another option out there, such as Unify.”

Following Chief Blanchard’s update, the board heard from Peter Campbell of The Crooked Ram restaurant.

“I’d like to share, being a small town, how shocked a lot of people were when I would bring up (the town’s use of surveillance technology), and this sort of immediate loss of trust that was felt with law enforcement and the town government, which is disappointing, because a lot of us have moved to this area precisely to be in a community where there is trust with the police department and trust with the people on the selectboard who are running the government. That’s why I moved here from New York City.”

Board member Jonathan West broadened the discussion when he expressed concern over proceeding to a solution without necessary caution given the current state of artificial intelligence technology and the corrosive effect it can have on the political process and the possibility of its nefarious use even in a law enforcement context.

“There are concrete examples of, not necessarily an entire police department, but individuals within the department, who are savvy about the workarounds within the system, which oftentimes just require a few keywords and then you can access different parts of the system that are supposedly ring-fenced,” he said.

“I think anytime you pass (technology) over to a centralized corporate entity that we don’t have control or access to, or to put our town’s safety in their hands and take them at their word for it, is dangerous,” West warned. 

“It’s not to say that there aren’t good uses … but I think the sort of fears and concerns everybody would have could be assuaged, if we are in control of our own data, we’re being very transparent about what we’re doing with this surveillance, why we’re using it and giving examples about what it does to keep the community safe,” he said. 

Select Board Vice Chair Heidi Chamberlain emphasized the need to educate the public about the thinking behind the town’s adoption of the technology and that it was important to draw the distinction between the town’s initial intent and the current negative examples of AI and surveillance cameras given the rapid evolution of the technology, subject of public discourse at home and across the country.

“I think that’s worth noting, when you talk to people that think that we set this up to do something deceitful, that was certainly not the intention,” she said “and that we (are) respond(ing) in real time. This is our second or third meeting about (the use of Flock and associated technologies), so we recognize that it’s problematic.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Manchester weighs Flock camera alternatives ahead of Vermont ban on automated license plate readers.

Courtesy of VT Digger