Commission: State studying county’s Flock use as public pushback continues
Trending
MORGANTOWN - It's becoming increasingly clear that the use of Flock-style automated license plate reader cameras will be a highlight issue during the upcoming session of the West Virginia Legislature.
And members of the Monongalia County Commission believe their implementation of the technology will feature prominently in those deliberations.
"We do have the strongest safeguards that I'm aware of on the use of these cameras," Commissioner Jeff Arnett said Wednesday. "Our rules and regulations that we've set in are actually, from what we understand, what is being modeled on a statewide basis as the legislature is looking into codifying rules and laws as to the use of these cameras. I feel pretty confident that what we have set up is as protective as can be with the use of these cameras."
Arnett's comments echo what his fellow commissioners told The Dominion Post following last week's meeting.
"I honestly think if the state does anything, they'll do our model," Commissioner Sean Sikora said.
"That's what we were informed," Commission President Tom Bloom added. "I've received several phone calls from people who, after seeing our model, said, 'We want to consider addressing it.' The only thing they want to look at is about the data - how the data is kept and then, is it destroyed?"
While the national debate over the pros and cons of Flock-style cameras will come to the state legislature when it convenes in January, it's been in Monongalia County for some time now.
Further evidence of that was provided Wednesday when a half-dozen residents showed up to voice their opposition to the county's decision to use up to $180,000 in directly allocated opioid settlement funds over three years to place 20 Flock cameras at locations across the county.
Speakers also spoke to the apparent lack of impact the overwhelmingly negative public reaction has had to this point.
"You made the decision first. That's fine. But now residents are raising these serious concerns. And instead of meaningful reconsideration, we keep hearing explanations for why those decisions are already the right one. It's okay to revisit a decision. It's okay to learn more and decide additional safeguards are necessary. The contract can change. We can even walk away from it," Stephanie Hunt said. "What's not reassuring is the appearance that no amount of new information will change the outcome because the commission has already decided this program must be defended."
As members of the commission have previously, Arnett explained that the cameras, as implemented in Monongalia County, "are not used as surveilling cameras ... but as searching cameras," in that the cameras only collect images of vehicles and license plates, and only hit on plate/vehicles tied to cases being worked by the department, entered into the National Crime Information Center, or tied to missing persons alerts. Searches conducted by the sheriff's department must include an active case number and are audited quarterly.
According to the Monongalia County Sheriff's Department policy, data may be shared with West Virginia law enforcement, federal partners and the Flock Nationwide Network. It will not be shared for immigration enforcement unless required by a court order. All requests must be written and approved by the department's ALPR administrator.
But Lesley Nash questioned whether the department has any real control over who is searching the county's data via the nationwide network, or why.
"What that means is that any agency or organization who is a part of the nationwide network has access to Monongalia County's data to run a query. So, this is not a situation where a sheriff's department in California sends a request to Monongalia County to say, 'Can we see your data?' What happens is an organization that's a member of the nationwide network simply says, 'I would like to search the nationwide network.' And then Monongalia County's cameras are included in that search," Nash said, adding. "We can have all the protections that we want locally, but because we're in those major networks, we can't control that."
Speakers, including Lindsey Jacobs, also responded to comments offered by Bloom last week indicating a handful of commenters online and a few people at a public meeting do not represent the wider public opinion on any particular issue.
"I think saying that just because people aren't showing up here on Wednesday mornings means that they don't care, and it's just a loud group of people online ... This is actually an issue nationally that cuts across ideologies. It's probably one of the most unifying issues between the right and the left in our nation currently," Jacobs said. "Everyone, almost everyone, seems to hate the idea of being surveilled unnecessarily."
Instead of the regimented commission procedure under which public comment is offered and then possibly responded to by commissioners later in the meeting, Jacobs suggested she and Bloom meet publicly to debate the Flock issue, "and any other issue you'd like to debate."
"Any time, any place that you're ready to have that conversation, I'd be happy to have that with you," she said.