What they said about Milton’s license plate cameras

Public comment is a regular part of council meetings, and as a member of council, it is very important to me. The insights I have gained from fellow citizens have often made a real difference in how I perceive an issue or opportunity. That is why I believe the purpose and integrity of public comment should be protected.

At the same time, everyone who comes to the podium has the right to express his or her views. I may not agree with how someone chooses to make a point, but I respect the right to make it. If a candidate for the State House wants to weigh in on the issue of the day, share information she has not personally fact-checked, and get videoed to hype it, that is her right. She exercised that right. I simply believe we should all be thoughtful about whether we are contributing meaningful information to a discussion or taking advantage of an issue because it has suddenly become politically useful.

The topic at the podium was license plate readers (LPRs). Flock cameras are the brand Milton purchases. LPRs are used widely because they have proven to be valuable tools for crime prevention and solving crimes. The AJC reported last month on a case I know to be true in which cameras helped solve a child abduction in under 20 minutes because of LPRs. Officers will tell you how valuable they are in fighting crime. Ask them.

This issue goes straight to the heart of public safety, which is one of the three areas on which I focus my service to you: 1. Do everything I can to keep you, your family, mine, and our properties safe, which means wisely discerning what our first responders need to protect and help us all; 2. Maintain the highest level of fiscal responsibility; and 3. Protect Milton’s heritage by minimizing rooftops and increasing greenspace.

In fact, I swore to uphold the Constitution of Georgia, which states in Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph II, “Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete.” I see cameras—with LPRs representing only a small part of the mix—as crucial tools for keeping our city and every city safe.

I am empathetic to the feeling that our privacy is constantly being invaded. I want more privacy, too. But I am not going to let political opportunism steer us away from the fundamental responsibility of government: keeping people safe.

The facts show that the sudden intensity of the focus on cameras is substantially political and timed to the midterms. You can track this issue, examine the messaging and actions, and see the change in intensity.

And that brings me to something interesting about this particular issue. In some parts of the country, cameras have become a political horseshoe issue—an appropriate visual for Milton. Candidates from both parties, on opposite sides of the political horseshoe, are campaigning against them. When an issue attracts opposition from very different political camps, it is worth asking whether the common ground is truly ideological or whether the political opportunity itself has become the common ground.

The other night at the podium was a case in point.

What fueled the focus on LPRs are accurate media reports that some officers around the country were using cameras for personal information. So far, most of that illicit use has involved tracking romantic partners. The misuse in any police department appears to involve a small percentage of officers, and the camera company now has different access criteria to prevent personal use.

When you stack up that misuse against the lives saved, crimes solved, and property recovered, to me there is no debate about the upside of camera usage. But that has not stopped the movement to de-tool police from turning the misuse into a cause célèbre and using it to gain political traction. So even though LPRs are the least prevalent type of camera, they are the target.

Not too long ago, following a tragic event that prompted a national debate about policing, there was a serious movement to take tools away from law enforcement. Some advocated going so far as to disarm or fundamentally reduce the role of police. It is worth remembering how quickly public sentiment can shift after an event—and how important it is to think carefully about what we want our first responders to have available when we need them most.

A little more perspective: License plates are issued to be both visible and noticed. They prove a car is registered to an owner and registered to drive on public roads. In many parts of the country in times of trauma, people must try to describe the vehicle and probably rarely recall the license plate number. Today’s cameras quickly assume that burden. I can only imagine they are a big help to a recovery system like Amber Alert.

Now, let me set the record straight about the metropolis south of us, since the speaker provided statistics about cameras that were unfortunately incorrect or incomplete. What few seem to realize is that LPRs are very much in the minority compared to what I would call regular cameras. Atlanta has over 2,000 LPRs of which the Flock brand comprises 529 of them. There are over 28,000 regular cameras owned by many entities integrated into its police command center. There are also 18,000 other cameras people have voluntarily registered that the police can access with permission.

A high-ranking officer in the Atlanta Police Department told me that cameras—often different types of cameras—in one way or another help solve every crime. There is no basis for the “Atlanta is the most surveilled city in the U.S.” claim. That is yet another baseless statistic from the AJC that has no root in fact and could not be proven. Additionally, that jab about the case-closure rate shows more lack of study.

There is something ironic about a speaker railing about cameras who prolifically creates content for social media, has a phone nearby (like most of us do 24/7), and willingly uploads their location, family pictures and thoughts to Apple servers to surf strangers’ algorithms forevermore.

On the other hand, a moment in time does not make the future, I appreciate today’s candidate for the state house could be tomorrow’s top-notch representative to Congress. Things change but the burden of providing safety won’t. And a loss of privacy is inherent in that.

But blame the criminals not the technology. And empower us to continually buy the very best crime fighting tools.

Thank you.

I attended a public meeting and spoke during public comment as a Milton citizen. I raised concerns about government surveillance and cited publicly available information. After my five minutes were over, an elected official used her position on the dais to attack my credibility, motives, and character when I was no longer in the room to respond.

Residents should not be put on the defensive for asking their government for transparency. The elected officials overseeing these programs should be answering the questions.

The information I cited is publicly available and easy to verify.

Public safety is our top priority, and Flock cameras are one many tools for keeping this community safe. It is our responsibility to make sure our police officers have the resources to do their job. I've also heard from residents with questions about how their data is shared, and I understand those concerns. Protecting that information is a shared responsibility, one the city takes seriously alongside our contracted vendors, and we'll continue to work together to ensure residents' data is handled with care and transparency. Our goal is to be proactive, so we can continue keeping Milton the safest city in Georgia while giving residents confidence in how their information is handled.