跳到正文
Hacker News (official RSS)(wkyc.com)·· 6 小時前品質評分63

Flock 監控技術濫用案:派遣員違規搜尋車牌 95% 下降

Flock camera searches fell 95% after a dispatcher's misconduct was caught

重點導讀

Flock 監控技術被派遣員濫用,造成數千次未授權車牌搜尋。

  • 事件經過:派遣員在多個月內使用 Flock 追蹤特定車牌,未經警長同意,行為被《華盛頓郵報》調查揭露。
正文

The thousands of unauthorized Flock searches by a Highland Heights dispatcher are an example of potential abuses of the technology as experts weigh pros and cons.

HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, Ohio — A Highland Heights police dispatcher used Flock surveillance technology to track people for personal reasons, conducting thousands of license plate searches over several months without the police chief knowing the system was being misused.

The misconduct came to light in August through an inquiry by The Washington Post. The dispatcher subsequently resigned, prompting the Highland Heights Police Department to overhaul its oversight policies and implement monthly audits of its license plate reader system.

Police Chief Dennis Matejcic acknowledged that he was unaware of the misconduct until it was brought to the department's attention.

"She was tracking vehicles and she knew what she was doing," Matejcic admitted. "She was doing things for her personal reasons. She was tracking people that she knew."

The abuse spanned several months, including April, when Kelly Sanders was driving through Highland Heights and received a speeding ticket.

"Immediately I'm actually irritated with myself, like why did I even let it get there!" Sanders recalled when she first got the ticket.

But Sanders had no idea that inside the department responsible for enforcing traffic laws, an employee was misusing police surveillance technology.

"It does change things," Sanders said. "It throws an element of trust or maybe mistrust in there."

Thousands of searches and a new policy

Flock cameras are designed to help law enforcement locate vehicles of interest and investigate crimes using a network of automated license plate readers.

Records show the Highland Heights dispatcher conducted thousands of searches targeting specific license plates, raising questions about how the activity went undetected for months.

Matejcic said the department acted as soon as it learned of the misconduct.

"We immediately jumped on it," he said. "We investigated it, we had to take steps to correct the problem and make sure it doesn't happen again."

Highland Heights has since adopted a new policy governing how its license plate reader system can be used, including restrictions on unauthorized searches and additional oversight.

"It spells out what are the prohibited uses, and it explains that we're going to have an audit, a monthly audit," Matejcic said.

The change in the department's use of Flock has been substantial.

In the first month after the dispatcher's departure, Highland Heights police recorded just 130 traffic searches using the Flock database. That represents a decline of more than 95% compared with April, when Sanders received her speeding ticket.

Privacy concerns across the country

The misconduct in Highland Heights highlights broader concerns about the oversight of surveillance technology used by thousands of law enforcement agencies across the country.

Flock operates a network of cameras capable of collecting information about vehicles and their movements, creating databases that police can search during investigations.

Erman Ayday, an associate professor of computer science at Case Western Reserve University who studies emerging technology and artificial intelligence, said the capabilities of the technology have advanced rapidly.

"Right now it can recognize the cars, it can identify the car's model, make, even read the bumper stickers on the car," Ayday said. "We go everywhere with the car. So, as long as our car's location is traced by this type of network, they can learn a lot of sensitive information about individuals."

The technology can also compare license plates against police databases and alert law enforcement when it identifies a vehicle being sought by investigators.

"It compares the corresponding license plate with the police database," Ayday explained. "If the plate belongs to someone... who is actually being sought by the police, then it gives an alarm to the police."

But as the technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, questions remain about how its use should be regulated.

"This is about the development of the AI technology versus the governance or the policy," Ayday said. "If we want to prevent these things from happening, we need to actually bring some heavy regulations about who should be using the system, and how the system should be used."

Flock is a private company, and municipalities pay millions of dollars to use its surveillance technology. The cities and towns that use the systems do not own the data collected by the cameras.

There is currently no single nationwide set of rules or governing body overseeing how Flock technology is used.

"There's a black part, there's a white part, but the gray area in between is extremely big," Ayday said. "So who is going to decide when something happens in that gray area?"

In Ohio, lawmakers have introduced proposals with bipartisan supportthat would regulate or even ban Flock technology. However, no new state laws appear imminent.

Driver welcomes changes, calls for accountability

For Sanders, learning about the misconduct changed her perception of the department that issued her speeding ticket.

But she said the police chief's response and the department's new oversight measures have helped restore some of her confidence.

"I think it improves my perception," Sanders said. "It gives me a little bit of hope that going forward, he's going to take into account all of these factors."

Sanders said she understands the potential value of surveillance technology in legitimate police investigations. Her concern is whether officers and other employees are held accountable for how they use it.

"They need to have a valid reason to even start digging into it," she said. "To even run it."

While Highland Heights has taken steps to prevent similar misconduct, the case raises questions about how other departments monitor access to the same technology.

The issue is not simply whether police have the ability to track drivers, but whether they can justify why those searches are being conducted.