Beverly's License Plate Camera Merits Debated, Challenged At City Council Meeting

BEVERLY, MA — Long-simmering concerns about the data collected through the use of Flock Automated License Plate Reader cameras in Beverly were at the forefront of a Beverly City Council subcommittee meeting as police championed the value of the system that they said has helped solve crimes and aid individuals in distress in recent months, while detractors waved the red flag about how camera data is stored and accessed.

The public meeting was ahead of what Mayor Mike Cahill said is an upcoming discussion with Flock about the security of the system and how that data is shared, including with the federal government.

"I think we understand the benefits that have been realized through the use of Flock and other data collection," Cahill said. "You are all here because you are worried about the things that may, or are happening, or will happen that are negative. ...

"We are in the process of setting up a meeting with Flock to bring a lot of these concerns to them and to determine whether we continue with them or not as a company."

Beverly Police Chief John LeLacheur told the Council and those at the meeting on Tuesday night that data collected in real time from the cameras was recently used to apprehend suspects in the Beverly home invasion, the apparent random killing of a Danvers woman, and to find a young driver whose mother identified as being potentially suicidal.

Lt. Ed Hathon said in his presentation that Flock data could only be used in those types of criminal investigations, and could not be accessed for the purpose of immigration enforcement or reproductive health care surveillance. He said the cameras are set up not to record information on race, gender, or facial recognition.

Hathon said the cameras record still-shot images of license plates and for some vehicle information, such as the type of vehicle and any distinguishing features, such as tow hitches and roof racks, but do not record live video or provide data on the driver.

He said that data is not shared with federal law enforcement agencies, but noted that license plates are owned by the state and compared the vehicle tracking to a police officer who can legally run the license plate of any car on the road without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

But the overwhelming majority of those who spoke during public comment said the cameras amounted to government surveillance that could become part of a "slippery slope" used to track and monitor any resident for any reason by a private company or the federal government.

"One of the residents said that the Beverly Police Department has my confidence, Flock as a company does not," said City Council President Julie Flowers. "That's a lot of what I'm hearing in the room. Chief, lieutenant, folks here in Beverly really appreciate and respect what you and members of the department do for us every day, and the training that your officers have gone through, and your attentiveness to these kinds of issues. ...

"It's Flock that raises the questions here."

City Councilor Kathleen Feldman expressed similar data storage and sharing worries — noting the potential value of all the information being collected.

Hathon said the cost to the city is $12,000 per year for the lease and use of the four cameras on Rantoul Street, Cabot Street, Brimbal Avenue and Elliott Street.

"When (Google's) Alexa and those types of tools first came out, my first thought was that they should be paying us to be putting them in our houses," she said. "The real product here is our data. So I would question why the price is so low. Twelve thousand dollars a year for what we're getting, there's more to that.

"That's at least my biggest concern."

Committee Chair Todd Rotondo said an additional joint committee meeting with public comment would be held following Mayor Cahill's meeting with Flock company officials.