Long Island lawmakers grill Flock Safety reps over ‘Big Brother’ surveillance network
Long Island lawmakers put Flock Safety reps on the hot seat last week over the controversial surveillance network, comparing the system to “Big Brother” and slamming the company’s defense that “99%” of courts found the cameras constitutional.
Suffolk County legislators from both sides of the aisle grilled the company’s reps for more than two hours during last Thursday’s public safety meeting over what lawmakers blasted as Flock Safety’s sprawling network of AI-powered plate-reading cameras logging innocent drivers’ movements.
In one particularly fiery exchange, Republican Anthony Piccirillo snapped “99% of courts upheld Jim Crow laws for 56 years” after Flock Safety’s Senior Director of Public Affairs Trevor Chandler argued that “99% of courts” have found the tech doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.
Piccirillo, the presiding officer, noted that a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled last week that a warrantless police search using Flock’s system amounted to “indiscriminate mass surveillance,” and violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Republican pol argued that other courts will “eventually catch up” as he pressed the Flock reps about the tech’s capabilities.
“Isn’t it true you’ve effectively built a nationwide surveillance network capable of reconstructing an individual’s movements over time?” Piccirillo asked the reps, who skipped last month’s meeting despite being called to testify.
Chandler and his colleague Joe Rosenberg, who is in charge of Flock’s account with Suffolk County, tried to dodge the question before conceding the tech has those capabilities.
Piccirillo also blasted Flock CEO Garrett Langley for previously calling the company’s critics “terrorists,” and condescendingly asked whether the reps considered Legis. Chad Lennon, an Afghanistan war veteran and purple heart Purple Heart recipient, a terrorist.
Other lawmakers also piled on their issues with the tech’s capabilities and lack of safeguards surrounding driver data and how it is utilized.
“We are very concerned about the ‘Big Brother’ watching,” Legis. Trish Bergin, a Republican, said, seemingly referencing The Post’s reporting on Suffolk doubling its number of Flock Cameras since last year.
Flock safety’s controversial AI-powered cameras scan and store info on every single vehicle that drives past, including license plates and distinct features such as dents, bumper stickers, roof racks, and more.
The cameras can automatically ping law enforcement for possible violations and the data on every driver is searchable to cops nationwide — who currently don’t need a warrant to look through Flock’s database.
Chandler also revealed that Suffolk keeps driver data for 30 days, which is 23 days longer than the company’s seven-day default, which can then be used to help police map a vehicle’s movements.
Most Suffolk lawmakers did not appear satisfied with Flock Safety’s answers regarding usage and oversight, and declared there must be better guardrails, oversight and transparency around law enforcement’s use of the technology.
Legis. Greg Doroski, a Democrat, revealed at the meeting the legislature is now working with the county police department on a “very strict” new local law regulating police searches and Flock data, while also holding the company liable.
Doroski added lawmakers also need to reconvene after a separate committee unanimously passed a $4 million deal with Flock Safety for its new “Raven” system listening devices a few months ago without a legislative hearing.
