Flock’s Gunshot Sensors Are Expanding to “Distress” Sounds
by Sagi Schwartzberg
Flock Safety is a police technology company most notable for its extensive network of automated license plate readers throughout the United States. Recently, Flock released a new tool, Raven, an acoustic gunshot detection network of microphones. While it is unclear exactly how this specific technology works, acoustic gunshot detection generally involves microphones listening for sounds that resemble gunshots, which then alert police in the area. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), Raven is getting an update.
In recent marketing materials, Flock has been touting new features to its Raven product: the ability of the device to alert police based on other sounds, including sounds of “distress.” Flock’s online ad for Raven, which allows cities to apply for early access to the technology, shows the image of police getting an alert for “screaming.” Interestingly, since the EFF reported on the upgrades to Raven, Flock amended the ad to display “distress” instead of “screaming.”
Flock has been at the center of legal challenges for cities and states that have adopted their products, including operating in North Carolina without a license. In Illinois, state officials said an audit found Flock allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection access to Illinois Automated License Plate Recognition data in violation of state law. This technology should concern cities and citizens alike, as not only is gunshot detection technology dangerous, but it is reportedly ineffective. In Chicago, police shot at an unarmed child while responding to a ShotSpotter alert (the sound was later determined to be fireworks), but the child was not physically injured. And in one Illinois village, a trustee issued a statement explaining his vote to cancel the city’s contract with Flock: “According to our own Civilian Police Oversight Commission, over 99% of Flock alerts do not result in police action.”
Flock technology may sound like an effective crime-fighting tool intended to assist law enforcement, but introducing a new feature that allows pre-installed microphones all over cities to listen to human voices in “distress,” without any oversight or safety guardrails, will likely result in multiple legal challenges, including civil liberties and public safety-related lawsuits as well as constitutional violations. Cities and states considering Flock’s technology should consider the legal costs such technology will have on taxpayer money when such technology is implemented and determine if the “savings” are worth it.
And citizens concerned about microphones and cameras recording their every move, without oversight or safety guardrails, should voice their concerns to city officials. As one commenter noted: “What could go (horribly, horribly) wrong?”
Sources: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Techdirt
As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
