Flock의 반대에 맞선 마을의 선택, 쓰레기봉투로 감시카메라를 가린 이유

🎉 YOU'RE INVITED! 404 Media is turning three, and we're throwing TWO separate events in NYC to celebrate: A live taping of the podcast with a special night of talks on Sept. 3, and an open-bar bash on Sept. 4. Subscribers at the Supporter level get free and discounted access to both events. Not a 404 Media Supporter yet? Sign up , and get all the party details here . For weeks, Verona, Wisconsin tried to get Flock to remove the three automated license plate cameras that its city council had voted to stop using. Flock told city employees not to remove the cameras, and a Flock employee told city officials that they were unsure whether the cameras could be remotely disabled, which led the town to decide to put black plastic trash bags over them until Flock eventually removed the cameras itself, according to emails obtained using a public records request by 404 Media. The emails give insight into the process cities face while deFlocking themselves after voting not to renew a contract with the AI surveillance company. As we’ve previously reported, multiple cities around the country have decided to put black trash bags over their Flock cameras while they wait for them to be removed; this is in part because, until the cameras are physically removed by Flock, cities are unsure whether they have the legal right to remove the cameras themselves and are not sure whether they can disable their recording operations. The emails show Verona city officials telling each other that they had made multiple requests to Flock to have the cameras removed, and show a work order from Flock in which the cameras were set to have maintenance performed on them rather than being removed. In February, Verona mayor Luke Diaz told the Wisconsin Examiner that Flock didn’t remove the cameras even after several requests: “They weren’t removing them,” he said. “We kind of looked at the contract, talked it over amongst staff, and the thing we felt most comfortable with was just covering them so they could stop spying on people … I’m 100% certain that they were still working,” even after the contract ended, he said. The emails obtained by 404 Media give more insight into what was happening behind the scenes, and why it took so long to get Flock to remove the cameras. A Flock spokesperson told 404 Media that the discrepancy occurred because Verona voted to not renew its contract rather than outright canceling it mid-term. It is clear from emails obtained by 404 Media, however, that Verona city officials wanted the cameras to come down as quickly as possible. On November 10, the Verona Common Council voted to terminate its contract with Flock because of reporting from 404 Media and others that showed Flock was regularly sharing surveillance information with federal agencies, often because local police departments were using the Flock system on behalf of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. At the November 10 meeting, Verona Common Council members repeatedly said that they trusted the Verona police department, but not Flock: “Unfortunately, Flock is not trustworthy, no matter what kind of guarantees they have given you,” Verona council president Mara Helmke told Verona police officials at that meeting. “I just don’t trust it … Flock has assured us that our data is ours, right? But we can’t trust that. We simply can’t,” alderman Spencer Harrison said. The day after the meeting, alderman Beth Tucker Long asked city employees to tell Flock that the contract would not be renewed. “Per the Council’s vote last night, notice of non-renewal of the Flock contract should be sent to Flock today,” she wrote. “Please copy me on the notice or send me a copy if it has already been sent. This is time-sensitive as the contract auto-renews for two years if non-renewal notice is not received 30 days before the December 14th auto-renew date. Additionally, please let me know when Flock will be removing their equipment. Are we able to turn off or disable the Flock cameras in the meantime?” By mid January, the cameras had still not been disabled or removed, which was noticed by a Verona resident. “I hope you are well. I spoke to you awhile back about the Flock cameras in Verona and also spoke at the council meeting that evening. I applaud the vote to discontinue the cameras,” one resident emailed a city councilmember on January 15, more than two months after the city voted not to renew its Flock contract. “However, I’ve noticed that at least two cameras (by Costco and by the park and ride) are still in place. Are they operating? My understanding was that the vote was to discontinue their use. While there’s maybe a delay in removal, the cameras should at least be covered by an opaque bag to ensure that they are not being operated (perhaps unknowingly) by Flock.” On January 16, Flock sent the city an automated alert saying it was going to “replace equipment” at one of its camera locations. Police chief David Dresser took this to mean that it was going to remove the equipment: “I’m hoping below is the work order to uninstall the cameras,” he wrote. “We have asked them to uninstall the cameras at least twice. We will follow up with Flock if the cameras remain after next week.” This message was forwarded to Mayor Luke Diaz, who said “Is there anything that would prevent us from just taking down the cameras and holding them at City Hall until Flock picks them up? I’m at the point where I think it’d just be easier to just take them down ourselves.” At this point, the city’s mayor, Luke Diaz, began instructing city employees to plan to remove the cameras. “Do we have the capability to remove the Flock cameras and put them in a location where they could be picked up? I know about the work order from Flock, but Mayor Luke would like them removed now if possible,” one of his staffers wrote to city employees. A public works employee responded and said “We would have time tomorrow to remove the cameras and solar panels and store them here at public works. I will need how many and their locations, also let me know if we are removing the poles or post they are mounted on, those may need to wait til spring.” After hearing that the city could remove the cameras itself, Diaz wrote, “Great. I don’t see anything in the contract that would prevent us from removing them. Also, the contract is now expired anyhow.” But before the cameras could be removed, a police officer asked the city to hold off on removing the cameras until after he had a call with Flock, in which he said they would give the company a one-week deadline to remove the cameras. “If they object to us taking them down ourselves, I will demand they remotely disable the equipment immediately and remove the cameras themselves as quickly as they can. I’ll inform them we will remove their equipment regardless of their objections by the end of next week if they cannot remove everything by then,” the officer wrote. The same police officer updated the city the next day, saying that Flock did object to the city removing the cameras, and stating that he wasn’t sure if they could be remotely disabled: “I just finished up my meeting with Flock Safety. They did object to our removing their equipment; however, he assured me he was going to put in an expedited removal order on the cameras. The rep I spoke with has never had to do that before, so he was unfamiliar with the process, but he said he would update me by 9am tomorrow morning and hopefully be able to give me a timeframe for their removal. I also requested immediate termination of the camera network via remote, and I received the same answer. He was not sure if that was possible or how to do it, but he would explore that option and get back to me tomorrow by 9am.” “I think, for the time being, if you or someone on your crew has availability to secure black plastic bags (or something else) over the cameras, that would be great,” he added. “We’ll bag them tomorrow,” public works responded. “When they’re bagged, please take a p