The metro area is blanketed in ALPRs and we were the only ones actually writing real policy about them. Now we don't have any ALPRs and can't build policy or shop it to any of our neighbors. We had harm reduction for the cameras and a plausible strategy for reducing their harm throughout the area, and instead we did something performative.
That's a good and reasonable question. The answer is: the cameras weren't going to do any meaningful harm in Oak Park (they were heavily restricted by policies we wrote about them, and we have an exceptionally trustworthy police department and an extremely police-skeptical political majority). But you can drive through Oak Park in about 5 minutes on surface streets, and on either side of that drive you'll be in places that are blanketed with ALPRs with absolutely no policy or restrictions whatsoever.
Had we kept the cameras, we'd have some political capital to get our neighboring munis (and like-minded munis in Chicagoland like Schaumberg) to take our ordinances and general orders as models. Now we don't. We're not any safer: our actions don't meaningfully change our residents exposure to ALPRs (and our residents weren't the targets anyways; people transiting through Oak Park were) because of their prevalence outside our borders.
What people don't get about this is that a lot of normal, reasonable people see these cameras as a very good thing. You can be upset about that or you can work with it to accomplish real goals. We got upset about it.
> What people don't get about this is that a lot of normal, reasonable people see these cameras as a very good thing. You can be upset about that or you can work with it to accomplish real goals. We got upset about it.
An alternative is you can try to convince those people that, while their desire to reduce crime is perfectly understandable, this might not be the way to do it effectively, to say nothing of the potential avenues for abuse (and in current day America, I'd be very wary of such avenues)
It remains an issue of trust for me. You not only have to trust your police and government(s), but you have to trust Flock too - and that trust has to remain throughout changing governments and owners of that company. I have a healthy distrust of both, particularly lately.
Just as importantly, but more to the point, is still the question of whether they're actually useful. To that end, does not the same logic apply to being able to pressure nearby municipalities to remove the cameras?
In any case, while I remain fundamentally opposed to such surveillance, you raise very good points, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position in this thread.
I'm fine that we took the cameras down. As you can see from my first comment on this part of the thread: they weren't working, and before we stopped our PD from responding to stolen car alerts, they were actively doing harm. But I disagree with you about the long-term strategy. I'd have kept the cameras --- locked down (we had an offer from Flock to simply disable them while leaving them up, so that they wouldn't even be powered up) --- and written a formal ALPR ordinance. Then I'd have worked with the Metro Mayors Caucus and informal west suburban mayor networking to get other munis to adopt it.
Because regulating cameras is an easier sell than disabling them, because ordinary people do not share HN's priors about surveillance technology, like, at all.
I'm not sure I agree with this, unless by "ordinary people" you mean a particular group. In my experience, the vast majority of members of oppressed or marginalized groups are strongly against these things. The only people I know who defend it are those that can hide behind "if I'm not doing anything wrong what do I have to hide"
It's not like we're going to have to argue about this in the abstract for long. Check in with me in a year and we'll see: are there more ALPRs or less ALPRs in the near west suburbs of Chicago? I would put money on a lot more. Dozens more were getting rolled out in our neighboring munis right as we announced we were canceling our contract.
I'm sure you're right, but that doesn't imply to me that "ordinary people" are okay with surveillance technology. At least 1 other explanation would be that they don't understand the implications.
Anyway, we'll check back in a year and see: are they actually effective and used responsibly? I would put money on "no"
I'm not wondering about it; I've watched the two sides of this issue play out. Progressive activists turn out with stuff about surveillance and resisting the Trump administration (I'm sympathetic!) and liberals (we only have progressives and liberals here) turn out talking about public safety and how the camera enforcement is less racist than human discretionary enforcement (I'm sympathetic to that argument too, but as I've noted elsewhere on the thread: the cameras aren't effective here).
This played out over years here; I attended all the board meetings, transcribed them, took notes, kept tallies of who was saying what. I was involved in our last election and the two mayoral candidates squared off on this issue (among several others).
