GET THE FLOCK OUT
Over 400 residents decry Village’s plans to install a surveillance system in the ‘Dale.
Hundreds of Village residents are wary of widespread surveillance. [photo: stockcake.com]
BY DEBORAH SKOLNIK
In one of the biggest controversies ever to roil Scarsdale, over 400 residents are protesting the Village’s new contract with Flock, a company whose comprehensive surveillance system is slated to be installed shortly in town. Under Flock’s ministrations, even more cameras and drones will track the movements of residents and non-residents alike, and more license plate scanners will zero in on vehicles’ activities within our town’s borders. While Scarsdale’s police force, the majority of the Board of Trustees, and a limited number of citizens publicly cite safety as the reason why Flock is necessary, a far greater number of residents have vehemently voiced opposition to the plan. Among their concerns, they say, is that Scarsdalians will surrender their precious privacy—and that the data collected ultimately could be requisitioned by those far higher in government.
Board begins meeting defensively
A number of residents have expressed dismay that the Village Board of Trustees quietly signed a contract with Flock in early April. The BOT’s constituents, they argue, weren’t made aware of the deal, let alone given an opportunity to pose questions and share perspectives. The frustration was evident during a June 10th BOT work session dedicated to Flock feedback, which Mayor Justin Arest kicked off by striking a palpably defensive posture. Without initially mentioning Flock by name, he stressed that “live-view cameras, license plate readers, and drones as first responders are enhancements to technologies we already use.
“We are at a crucial moment for public safety in Scarsdale,” he continued. “While our crime rate has remained low…we have not been immune to the crime rings that have targeted our area…The best way to protect what we have built is to remain vigilant and ensure our officers have the tools they need before, not after, a tragedy occurs.”
Arest disputed the notion that residents were blindsided by the Flock contract. “Despite what some of you may have heard, we have followed a public and transparent process. This project was first introduced during a January work session dedicated to the police department’s budget,” he said. “Funding was requested and then included in the Village’s public budget, which was thoroughly reviewed and adopted through our annual public process…we also had a public work session to discuss these technology improvements, as well as the Flock safety program specifically.” Subsequent to that session, “the board decided to vote on the contract at our business meeting as an add-on item,” he said.
He also stressed that the contract with Flock can be terminated within 6 months, and data will only be accessible through court order or police chief approval. And in a statement designed to hit home with the budget-conscious in the audience, he added that the price agreed upon with Flock was favorable to the Village.
Police, Village attorney favor Flock
Chief of Police Steven DelBene echoed Mayor Arest’s opening remarks, stating that Flock’s equipment will enhance preexisting surveillance efforts throughout Scarsdale. License plate readers, he said, have allowed officers in neighboring villages to recover lost property and apprehend suspects. Surveillance cameras will allow police to spot criminal incidents as they unfold in real time. The drone as first responder initiative, he said, will dispatch drones to the scene of an emergency even before official vehicles arrive. In turn, the drones’ video footage will allow decisions to be made even before police can reach the target area.
“These technologies are not about broad surveillance,” Chief DelBene said. “They are targeted, controlled, and used appropriately for public safety purposes.” To get a better understanding of the ways in which Flock can be used for Scarsdale’s benefit, Chief DelBene consulted authorities in New Canaan, CT, a town similar to Scarsdale in terms of affluence and size. Among other things, he said, Flock surveillance aided in the resolution of a pedestrian hit-and-run accident and allowed authorities to flag a car driven by a wanted person when it entered the town. Other instances he cited involved helping an endangered person, deterring a stalker, and nabbing a man who stole golf clubs from a country club.
Scarsdale Village’s attorney walked the audience through the steps that went into drafting the Flock contract, stressing that there was a directive to protect privacy. “We negotiated with Flock what they’ve referred to as one of the most stringent contracts that has been negotiated —the most protective set of data privacy rules agreed to by the vendor.” Before any information is released due to a court order or subpeona, the Village has the right to challenge or seek to limit it, he added. Next, he explained the circumstances under which the data could be released to third parties. All data collected will be deleted after 30 days.
Scarsdale’s Board of Trustees is under fire for signing a contract with Flock.
Residents push back during public comments
A man residing at 40 Montrose Road, who is a former employee of the National Security Agency, shared his dismay about the installation of Flock. “The system that Scarsdale wishes to implement is extremely dangerous because of two properties,” he said. “Firstly, it is nonspecific. It is not actively targeted only at lawbreakers but passively gathers data on everyone, whether they are suspected of an infraction or not…Secondly, it is persistent. Because the records are kept for several weeks at the very least, they allow retroactive surveillance. This combination…is the hallmark of mass surveillance.” Such a system, he starkly warned, could be used for dark purposes. “Mass surveillance systems are a powerful weapon. They're a weapon that the government wants us to spend our tax money to build, but we must remember that it's a weapon that is pointed squarely us,” he concluded.
A parade of other Scarsdalians followed, the vast majority of whom voiced objections of their own. But not all: Robin Stettnisch, known to many as the woman who sometimes totes a “Scarsdale Destroys Families” sign around town, spoke about the times people have called her names merely for exercising her right to free speech. “So in terms of greater security and being able to hold people accountable, I am all for [Flock],” she said. A man later took his turn at the podium and cited 80 studies that found decreases in crime after CTV surveillance technology was installed in a given area. Several other residents stopped short of demanding that the Flock contract be torn up, but expressed a desire for things such as a shorter data retention time and the establishment of no-camera zones.
Far and away, however, residents expressed fear, confusion, and even anger. “Are we going to have the resources to challenge every subpoena that comes our way?” asked a resident of 17 Mamaroneck Road. In a closing remark that prompted audience applause, he said, “Let’s just note that the number of people who signed the petition opposing this is more than the number of people who voted for the trustees in the recent election.”
Another woman expressed dismay at the speed with which the Flock contract was signed. “I wonder in a community with such a low crime rate whether this surveillance equipment is necessary or will provide sufficient benefit to justify the risks of disclosing the private information of law abiding citizens,” she said. “Let's slow down and make sure this is an avenue worth pursuing.” Other residents shared concerns that people of color might be disproportionately targeted, or that Scarsdale could become a police state.
“It was voted in secret”
Mayra Kirkendall-Rodriguez, whose OpEd letter appears in this week’s Insider, accused Village authorities of using sneaky tactics to approve Flock. “It was voted in secret,” she contended. “There was zero transparency, and [Village leaders] chose to sign a contract with Flock Safety, a company riddled riddled with violations. It has a huge lawsuit hanging over it. It has shared information with government authorities and immigration authorities in the state of Texas, a state with a long tradition of supporting police and soldiers. There are towns that have said they don't want to do business with Flock. Texas. Let that sink in.
There was no urgency to vote for this technology,” she continued. Moreover, she said, a freedom of information request she filed revealed that prior to informing Village residents about Flock, Village authorities reached out to to local clergy, a member of the Scarsdale school district, and to state representative and senators in support of drones, cameras, and license plate readers for Scarsdale. In addition, she contended that Village leaders failed to perform due diligence on Flock and Scarsdale’s eclectic community. “You voted for this technology without ever vetting the company, without ever turning around and looking at your diverse population. We are diverse in ethnicity, race, religion, professional expertise, and personal life experiences. And you didn't care that we're educated that we have an incredibly high medium of income. You did not care once to ask us for our opinion…You can say you're transparent, [but] that does not make it so thank you.”
A resident of Speaker 72 Palmer summed up what many in the audience were feeling. “How much crime do we have in Scarsdale that we need such a big gun? As a physician, I can tell you that [when someone is ill] we start with the minimum [treatment] first, and then we up it slowly depending on how bad the illness is getting. We don't just go to the biggest gun possible simply because it can treat all ills.”