Let’s start with Benn Jordan’s story that broke these things open and showed us how easy it was to get into them and see things you probably shouldn’t. With the help of research provided by John Gaines, he discovered they are not simply being used to “track down stolen cars” as some authorities have said; nor does the technology actually reduce crime. Quite the contrary, actually, as you will see later in the story.
Pay close attention about 11 minutes in, because they claim they do not use facial recognition to capture or record people, that they encrypt the data, and delete it after 7 days. And all of these claims are false.
By the time Benn finished his research, he discovered (47) serious shortcomings in the security of the devices, the network itself, and how easy it is for a threat actor to access the data that these are collecting. And oh, it gets worse. What Benn found was not just tracking stolen cars; it was networks of cameras being used to create dossiers on people and citing campaigns for surveillance without a warrant. And if that irks you, don’t skip to the 28 minute mark about federal agencies using the cameras for immigration purposes.
While Benn was performing his research, he became a direct target of surveillance himself.
On that note, we move into the follow-up story from Shannon Morse, who focused on the legal implications and lawsuits that have been developing around this technology, while shedding light on how actors are accessing them with stolen police credentials because Flock cameras do not support MFA, and once you get into one, you can see into everything. Speaking of see into everything, the camera that Shannon uses in her story is pointed at the dog park. Not the parking lot. But on the subject of cars…
Shannon uses a real case that involved a woman named Chrisanna Elser, who was loosely associated with a package theft, and because her car “kind of matched” the description, she was falsely accused of that theft and the burden of proof was forced onto her shoulders to prove her own innocence, because the police said the system doesn’t lie. And now for the most glaring problem of all.
Shannon’s research is compounded by Benn’s findings that you can replace or modify captured footage in an undetectable manner, bringing into question the integrity of any evidence being provided by Flock to solve crimes; something Flock is very proud of.
If the cameras aren’t being used to track people, why are they pointed at dog parks? If the cameras can’t be used by federal agencies, how did ICE get ahold of them? If the cameras don’t lie but the evidence can be modified, what good is a chain of custody?
