We value diverse viewpoints in our safety discussions.

As we explore safety solutions for Lakemont, we're sharing this unedited resident perspective to encourage informed dialogue. We respect all community voices and present this viewpoint verbatim:

Say NO to Flock!

There are some homeowners pushing for Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) to be installed all around Lakemont, tracking and recording footage and data about every vehicle that passes by. There are plenty of gated and video recorded communities in this area, and we explicitly avoided those during our house hunt. We preferred a more welcoming environment.

There are no laws regulating ALPRs in Washington state. Police agencies have only a non-binding, voluntary policy in place, but there is no auditing or enforcement in place. They are basically saying "trust us" with a wink.

ALPRS are opposed by the Electronics Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit supporting civil liberties in the digital world.

ALPRs are opposed by the Americal Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

ALPRs are opposed by the University of Washington Center for Human Rights (UWCHR).

I encourage you to read through all of the above for explanations, but their main reasons are:

• No actual evidence that ALPRs reduce crime

• Lack of oversight

• Misreads and false hits

• Misuse by Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) and others with access to the database

Searching around, the vast majority of hits online are about people trying to block, ban, or remove ALPR technology. The only positive articles about this technology are put out by the companies selling the technology. But, privately, even LEO aren't all on board. In one forum online, a LEO posted:

We have a TON of them in my area, from an investigative stand point the bad guys have already found ways to beat them by swapping or obscuring the tags.

Flock claims that its technology is "intended for use after specific incidents, not for continuous surveillance." However, the primary benefit called out by any positive article is the real-time, automatic alerting on stolen vehicles or Amber alerts. So already, Flocks claims are extremely suspect. This would not be enabled for HOA-funded cameras, anyway, so the only purpose to track and record you, your friends, family, contractors, and other service providers. The "SafeList" feature claims that residents' vehicles will be excluded from search results. But it doesn't say the data is removed. It still exists in the database, and can still be retrieved.

Flock claims its customers determine who has access to the data and footage. But they continue:

However, Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so or if Flock has a good faith belief that such access, use, preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with a legal process or request; (b) enforce this Agreement, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Flock, its users, a third party, or the public as required or permitted by law

Do not believe the bullet points. The real information is in the fine print. It is not up to us or the HOA board who accesses the data. It is up to Flock.

Flock doesn't track who the driver is, so cannot pin a crime on a particular individual. One LEO posted:

i feel like most of the cars used to commit crimes around here are either stolen or have temp/no tags anyway so why pay the extra money for a tag reader instead of just a normal security camera? plus getting the tag isn't generally enough to point the finger at who was actually the driver

Flock is a private company whose sole purpose is surveillance and data collection. If the DOJ, ICE, or CBP knocks on the door and asks for the database or real-time access to it, as stated above, Flock may comply, no warrant needed. The UW Center for Human Rights article above digs into the dangers of exactly that.

If Flock gets bought out, do you trust the new owners to maintain the current policies? With as often as terms of use change for every service we subscribe to, do you trust that Flock's stated policies will remain in effect for the lifetime of the cameras, or even the next four years under a rapidly changing LE landscape?

I personally am not willing to pay extra to enable a surveillance state and sacrifice the civil liberties and privacy of myself, my loved ones, and my service providers. I'm not opposed to cameras in general. I have them on my property. I do strongly oppose the footage and data being in the control of a third party, for-profit company with all the abuses, misuses, and mistakes that enables. I encourage you all to think carefully about this program and decide if this is really what you want in your community.