In response to “City cancels deal for license plate tech”:
Communities across the country are asking how to improve public safety while respecting civil liberties. From a law enforcement perspective, tools like license plate recognition (LPR) technology from Flock Safety show that both goals can be met.
LPR systems provide officers with timely, objective information that helps identify vehicles connected to crimes, without tracking people. The technology captures images of license plates and basic vehicle details in public spaces. It does not use facial recognition, collect personal data, or monitor the whole of individuals’ movements.
This distinction matters, especially during serious incidents. Following the recent shooting near Brown University, law enforcement relied on license plate technology to help identify and locate the suspect’s vehicle. That information helped narrow the search quickly and supported a coordinated response. As a lifelong detective, I found that in situations like that, minutes matter, not just to solve crimes, but to prevent further harm.
Rather than casting a wide or intrusive net, LPR allows officers to focus on specific, known threats, such as stolen vehicles or cars linked to active investigations. With appropriate policies, oversight, and data retention limits, this technology strengthens public safety while respecting privacy.
Public safety and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. When used responsibly, tools like Flock Safety help law enforcement protect communities without compromising fundamental rights.
George Khoury, Retired Brockton Police Sergeant Detective
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Unfortunately, Flock is not a company that can be trusted with this data. You mention “appropriate policies, oversight, and data retention limits”; Flock has been caught multiple times tracking citizens that committed no crimes and is negligent with their security. In the post you’re responding to, Cambridge canceled the contract because Flock can’t even keep track of their own camera installations. Not to mention the civil liberties they are constantly skirting.
I disagree that any solution to public safety requires LPR, at all. But even if we don’t see eye-to-eye on that, to say Flock can provide public safety while respecting civil liberties is provably false.
>>When used responsibly…
And that blows apart your argument right there. We can’t trust Flock to use its technology responsibly, and certainly not the Trump Administration if it somehow gets its paws on this data.
Cambridge was quite safe before Flock came along. We will be quite safe without it.
If Mr. Khoury believes that ALPR systems are safety critical, he should direct his ire where it belongs: Flock.
They installed two cameras without after the city deactivated sixteen existing cameras. Absent this material breach, there was room to negotiate restoration of the system. Flock is entirely to blame here.
As for me, I think ALPRs are a grave threat to our civil liberties.
The only way such a camera system should be implemented is if it is ENTIRELY under the control of the city and its own law enforcement and does NOT share data with national databases as we cannot trust an outside 3rd party to play man in the middle with data not to be providing it to Palantir (as Flock evidently does) and its national police state agenda under the current administration.
These are dangerous times and ones where states like Texas cannot be trusted with data relevant to Cambridge or MA since they have used it to claim jurisdiction over their residents or past residents when they move to states like MA that respect human rights, personal autonomy and constitutional freedoms.