A coalition of residents from Springfield and Holyoke held a rally in front of Springfield City Hall this week, asking the City Council there to end contracts for automated license plate readers (ALPRs) manufactured by companies like Flock Safety.
ALPRs continuously capture photos of passing cars, which are added to a library of images that can be accessed by different law enforcement agencies — sometimes from across the country.
Residents with DeFlock Holyoke and Springfield say the cameras' dragnet-style surveillance violates their civil liberties. At the rally, the group hoisted a banner that read 'Flock Out: No AI surveillance, no ALPRs.'
Kenneth Averett lives in Springfield, and said there is an ALPR camera right outside his home. He said it's discomforting to know the camera is constantly recording so close to the routes he drives every day.
"It feels invasive, you know? It feels really invasive," he said.
Averett recently moved to Springfield from Boston, and said members of his church community inspired him to get involved in the effort to get ALPRs out of the city.
"Living in Springfield should not mean being subjected to warrantless tracking and surveillance," he said. "Safety and freedom are not interchangeable."
Protestors at the rally spoke at the City Council meeting being held that night, urging the councilors to consider a resolution that would sever the relationship between the Springfield Police Department and any ALPR manufacturers.
"ALPRs like Flock are tools for authoritarianism," Springfield resident Terry Owens told the City Council. "Authoritarian states have historically used mass surveillance to intimidate people and silence dissent. When the government can track where you and I go, whether to a church, a civic group or a protest, it has a chilling effect on democracy."
Springfield officials said they are aware of concerns around ALPRs. City Councilor Zaida Govan said she is working on a ordinance to regulate the devices, and anticipates bringing it before the council in mid-October.
"I agree that we have to find a happy medium between our privacy and public safety," Govan said. "Historically in this city, as we know in a lot of urban cities, these type of devices have been used to marginalize more [sic] the people who live in the city."
The Springfield Police Department does not make public the number of ALPR cameras they use for security reasons, but maintains it has strict protections in place to prevent abuse.
"Our policy [is] flock can only be used in targeted investigations," said Ryan Walsh, a spokesperson with the Springfield Police. "That means we have to have a report number or an investigation number that must be used to utilize the cameras. And patrolmen cannot access it on their own."
He said the department has used the cameras to solve violent crimes and find missing persons. But Walsh is sympathetic to the mistrust residents have of the surveillance technology.
"We understand the concerns from the community," he said. "Unfortunately, in Springfield, we have a lot more crime than some of these suburban and rural areas do. So this one piece of technology that helps in these investigations is really key for us at this time."
Walsh said Springfield Police have taken community feedback into account in some cases: around a year ago, the department began to limit what departments could access their ALPR image database, as residents were fearful it could be accessed by federal agencies like ICE.
"We changed our settings so that it's only able to be looked at by our partner agencies in New England and a small portion of New York," he said. "So feeding out to federal agencies or national agencies does not happen. And part of that is listening to the community."
Public pushback against ALPR cameras and the companies that create them is manifesting across Western Massachusetts. Both Easthampton and Greenfield ended contracts with Flock Safety this year, over similar privacy concerns from residents.