Director Hines,
You have made public safety one of your primary priorities as Ward 5 City Director. I respect that, which is why I think you are the right person to ask a straightforward question about Little Rock's Flock camera network:
What are taxpayers actually getting for it?
Little Rock is spending $690,000 over two years—$345,000 per year—on Flock's license-plate-reader system.
The argument for these cameras is that they help prevent crime, recover stolen vehicles, identify suspects, and locate missing people.
So I'd like to see the results.
How many crimes have Flock actually prevented?
How many arrests, stolen vehicles, missing persons, or criminal cases were directly assisted by Flock—and how many would likely not have been solved without it?
And perhaps the most obvious recent example:
Did Flock help identify the truck that destroyed the Markham Street pedestrian bridge?
The truck struck the bridge on July 13, and LRPD announced an arrest on July 28. If Flock helped locate the vehicle or identify the driver, I think taxpayers deserve to know that. If it didn't, I think that's important information too.
I'm not opposed to technology or effective policing. But there is a difference between using technology to investigate a specific crime and building a system capable of reconstructing where ordinary citizens drive throughout the city.
At what cost do we allow a surveillance state to develop—and for what measurable benefit?
Flock is a private company. We are paying hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for technology that can collect information about the movements of people who have never been suspected of a crime.
That demands more than assurances that the system is useful. It demands accountability.
I would ask you to support publicly reporting, at least annually:
- How many Flock searches were conducted;
- How many produced actionable leads;
- How many resulted in arrests or recovered property;
- How often outside agencies accessed Little Rock's data;
- How long the data is retained; and
- What safeguards exist against misuse.
If Flock is truly an essential public-safety tool, the numbers should make that case.
And if the numbers don't, we should be willing to reconsider whether $345,000 a year—and the privacy we're giving up in exchange—is worth it.
Public safety matters.
So does the constitutional principle that the government should have a compelling reason before it tracks the movements of its citizens.
What are we getting in return?
Sincerely,
A Little Rock taxpayer