Representatives of Flock, the public safety and surveillance technology company, got grilled again by state lawmakers.
The Joint Committee on Government Organization heard from Dan Haley, chief legal officer for Flock and Matt Fanto, director of product security and privacy for Flock.
This was a continuation of a legislative focus that started in August, examining the controversial cameras that capture images including license plate numbers, vehicle make, model, color and unique features like bumper stickers or temporary tags to create a searchable digital database of vehicle movements.
“I want to acknowledge a small elephant with us in this virtual room,” said Haley, who appeared via streaming video technology. “In August, one of our colleagues testified voluntarily before this body. Some of his answers were unsatisfactory to several of you.
“I want to be clear: every Flock employee who represents Flock is expected to do so honestly, forthrightly, and with the intention of answering the questions posed. I’m confident that my colleague did so, and I’ve been puzzled, frankly, by the tone and tenor of the exchanges we’ve had with some of you since that appearance .
Flock’s Haley continued, “I’m here today to clarify the record where we can, answer your questions as directly as possible, and put us back on a productive and constructive footing as we work together to ensure that West Virginia law enforcement is able to use these impactful technologies.”
Over the past few months, lawmakers led by Delegate Tristan Leavitt have followed up with a series of written questions to Flock. Leavitt followed up Monday during the interim committee meeting.
“Our last letter included a number of questions that we asked you to address, we hoped you might do that in your opening statement. But since you did not, I’m going to go through those,” began Leavitt, R-Kanawha, before launching into a round of inquiries.
West Virginia could be moving toward state-level policies for Flock, even as debates about the cameras’ use have ignited in communities statewide like Huntington and Monongalia County.
Much of the hour and a half of legislative discussion on Monday focused on how flock’s data is used, where the images go, who has access to the information and safeguards.
“We are obviously digging into a multifaceted issue here and balancing public safety and police response against civil liberties, and we appreciate your help in outlining our legislation for it,’ said Delegate Chris Phillips, R-Barbour, chairman of the House Government Organization Committee.
Advocates say the technology provides law enforcement with objective, searchable vehicle and license plate data to help solve and prevent crimes quickly.
For example, the cameras can spot stolen vehicles instantly by reading license plates and alerting police. Or they can help track vehicles linked to abducted children or missing vulnerable adults.
The overriding concern about the automated license plate readers is the creation of a massive, passive surveillance network that tracks and logs the movements of ordinary citizens, including people not suspected of any crime, without a warrant.
Delegate Kayla Young, D-Kanawha, asked how many communities have deals with Flock in West Virginia but didn’t get a very specific answer.
“How many customers does Flock have in West Virginia?” she asked.
Haley replied, “We have a relatively small number of customers in West Virginia.”
“What’s the number?” Young followed up.
“I don’t know,” Haley said.
“How do you know it’s small then,” Young asked. “Compared to what?”
Haley said, “Compared to our presence in a lot of states. The reason I’m not giving a specific number is because the precision that you’re asking for, I don’t want to misstate. I believe it’s around 10, possibly now 11.”
Young later asked, “Do you know how many flock cameras there are in West Virginia? A range is fine.”
“I do not,” Haley said, “but I can certainly get that information for you quickly.”