Connecticut Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff is calling for a voluntary pause on the installation of new automated license plate readers as state lawmakers grapple with growing concerns about how the technology is being used and how much data it can collect about ordinary motorists who aren't breaking the law.
Duff, a Democrat who represents Norwalk and Darien, says Connecticut already has strong laws governing automatic license plate readers. Gov. Ned Lamont signed legislation in May that intended to clarify privacy concerns in state statutes.
But Duff says the rapid expansion of Flock cameras, including installations on private property, has raised questions lawmakers did not anticipate when they approved those protections.
Duff is not alone among legislators calling for this moratorium. Sen.James Maroney, a Democrat who represents Milford, Orange, West Haven and Woodbridge, and Lamont have also asked municipalities to pause new installations. Lamont wants a state council to review the technology and develop guidance.
Duff says lawmakers will have to decide when they return to session in January whether a voluntary pause needs to become mandatory.
'People are just sick and tired'
Duff says he began hearing about Flock cameras appearing in more locations after the end of this year's legislative session.
He says the state does not have a comprehensive picture of how many cameras are operating in Connecticut or where they are located.
"Some towns have a few, and some towns have a lot," Duff said in an interview with Connecticut Public. "We've really got to get our arms around this so that we can build upon the law that we passed this year."
Duff says the shift toward installations on private property makes regulating the technology more difficult because existing contracts may have to be honored.
He cited reports of Flock cameras being installed on property belonging to retailers including Lowe's and Home Depot.
"The real issue is that people are just sick and tired of feeling like they're being watched the moment you walk out the door until you get back in your door again," Duff said. "That's not the society we want to live in."
Lawmakers are 'in the dark'
Duff says lawmakers are "pretty much in the dark" about how widespread the technology has become.
Norwalk has 11 Flock cameras, he said. But Duff says he has heard that smaller communities elsewhere in Connecticut have installed 60, 70, 80 or even 100 cameras.
He says that raises questions about whether communities are using the technology primarily for targeted public safety purposes or creating what he calls a surveillance state.
"When you have a community with 60, 70, 80, 100 of these things, that's where people get really upset," Duff said.
Balancing safety and privacy
Police departments have promoted license plate readers as useful tools for finding stolen vehicles and investigating violent crimes.
Duff says there are legitimate uses for the technology. In Norwalk, for example, he says some cameras are positioned near highway entrances and exits or in areas where vehicle thefts are more common.
But he questions whether there is a point at which the number of cameras becomes excessive.
"There's a balance there," Duff said. "We have gone way through the other side of what the balance is."
Duff says lawmakers could consider limits on the number of cameras a community can operate, requirements for publicly disclosing their locations and restrictions on cameras placed on private property.
They could also revisit how long the data can be retained. Duff said lawmakers agreed this year with police chiefs to allow license plate reader data to be retained for 21 days, although he said he originally wanted a shorter period.
Duff also raised concerns about the terms of service governing Flock's technology and who ultimately controls the data collected by the cameras.
Flock defends its safeguards
In a statement, Flock said it welcomes Lamont's review of license plate readers and is confident in its safeguards.
The company said it has a Connecticut-specific written process for data sharing and limits eligible sharing relationships to neighboring states as required by state law. Flock also said its cameras have a 21-day data retention period across Connecticut.
"We've been honored to collaborate with the Connecticut Police Officers Standards and Training Council (POST) and offer testimony before Connecticut’s Public Safety and Judiciary Committees leading up to the passage of Public Act 26-14, one of the strongest ALPR laws in the country," the company said. "This law provides a clear framework and demonstrates how safety and privacy are not competing priorities."
Flock also noted that its system led to arrests following a deadly home invasion in Milford and that license plate readers in Connecticut alerted to authorities to nine missing people in July.
Duff says the issue ultimately comes down to deciding how much surveillance Connecticut residents are willing to accept in exchange for the public safety benefits of the technology.
"Police are going to want every tool at their disposal to prevent crime. That's their job," Duff said. "It's the civilians who are in charge who are supposed to craft the policy that balances all those wants and needs out."
