Page 38 - PCPA Winter 2025 Bulletin Magazine

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
TECHNOLOGY UPDATE
legal challenges show
the data those systems
collect can be subject to
public records requests.
A November court ruling
in Skagit County Superior
Court of Washington
state made headlines-
and have essentially
categorized surveillance
camera data collected
by Flock Camera systems as public records. This
(Washington state) information is now available to
the public via a right to know request. The ruling
has caused several police departments to pull the
plug and go dark with their ALPR camera systems
while they evaluate how best to proceed. Although
this case currently has no legal bearing on our state,
this rationale could be taken into consideration
by Commonwealth decision makers when similar
requests for camera data are made.
The rapid expansion of these camera networks has
also prompted public concern and, in August, a formal
congressional investigation. There are questions
regarding cybersecurity, third-party access, and the
financial burden of vendor contracts that can lock
municipalities into expensive services. The camera
networks can create central repositories of location
data that may be shared across agencies. Even
homeowner associations and private businesses
can use these ALPR cameras and data. There has
even been an emerging trend of soliciting the public
to interface their privately-owned doorbell cameras
with these systems. These facts can create concern
about a citizens’ movement and their privacy.
Another challenge is cost. The subscription cost
for some camera systems rises sharply after the
department’s initial contract period. In September, it
was reported that one department’s costs will nearly
triple under its next contract. The financial issue is
compounded by other police technology vendors, who
have shifted business models to provide equipment
on a subscription-based model as opposed to the
“buy once, cry once” philosophy. For municipalities,
this creates financial uncertainty. Agencies are left
questioning what they truly own versus what they are
essentially renting.
The value of leased tools that police departments
use such as body cameras, conducted electrical
weapons, vehicles, and records management
systems is undeniable. But the most critical asset
they possess may be the data itself. Aggregated
audio, video, and electronic records hold immense
investigative power.
Yet contracts often grant vendors broad rights over
this data. For example, one contract between a
camera provider and the Boston Police Department
gave the company a “worldwide, perpetual, royalty-
free right and license” to “disclose the Agency Data…
for investigative purposes.” Without clarity on what
“investigative purposes” entails, agencies risk signing
away control of their most valuable resource. As with
any tool used by modern police, due diligence is
more prudent (and I argue necessary) than accepting
the new shiny object at face value of a flyer.
38