Scottsdale’s ever-increasing surveillance state
OPINION — Kudos to Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky for questioning whether Flock cameras violate our constitutional guarantee to the right of privacy as described in the Fourth Amendment. I think we can agree that this kind of technology may ultimately make our streets safer, but at what price?
As the mayor pointed out during the Oct. 6 city council meeting, "intermittent observation" might be acceptable, but Flock's automated license plate readers are operating throughout Scottsdale "persistent(ly) and constant(ly)." We don't have to wonder whether this data can be abused because it already has in many parts of the country.
Councilwoman Solange Whitehead went so far as to suggest during the same meeting that federal access had been made possible in some places "through a backdoor." If nothing else, the city council needs to immediately tear up the contract with Flock and replace it with a vendor with stronger safeguards if it's true that the company “didn't uphold the commitment they made,” as Councilwoman Whitehead indicated.
The residents of Scottsdale deserve better. I look forward to hearing more about Councilwoman Whitehead's vendor re-evaluation, independent data audit and recommended next steps if the council decides it needs to keep investing in this kind of "extreme advanced technology," as the mayor put it.
Personally speaking, I hope it doesn't, because I don't want to live in an ever-increasing surveillance state.
Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.
