OPINION:
A 41-year-old Suffolk, Virginia, man named Jeffrey Sovern has been charged with 13 counts of property destruction and a dozen more counts of petit larceny and possession of burglary tools for allegedly, and over the course of several months, damaging dozens of government-installed Flock cameras — vehicle tracking devices that capture license plate numbers, as well as make, model, color and other identifying features of cars and trucks. Why’d he allegedly do it?
The cameras scoop data on a warrantless basis.
In other words: Anyone who drives by is subjected to the surveillance.
“[They’re] unconstitutional and a violation” of “Fourth Amendment rights,” Sovern told investigators during his preliminary hearing on June 27, WAVY.com reported.
He’s pleaded not guilty.
His case comes as the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. United States that law enforcement’s use of geofence warrants — location data for cellphone users that is maintained by tech companies like Google — constituted a “search” and, as such, is guided by the Fourth Amendment. In other words, police can’t just petition Big Tech to turn over batches of records of cellphone users who were in a particular place at a particular time — records police then used as the basis of identifying suspects.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elana Kagan said “an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cellphone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information — even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company.”
If SCOTUS found so on geofence warrants, how much more so that same logic might be applied to Flock cameras.
On the police side — law enforcement says the data it scoops from Flock cameras can help track and locate criminals who would otherwise go undetected. Flock Safety, the leading maker of the cameras, estimates its system has helped solve 700,000 crimes annually.
“We’re just trying to keep you safe,” Flock defenders say.
That may be. But Americans are just trying to stay free. And freedom, by nature, carries risks because only the moral and virtuous are capable of self-governance. The more immoral a society, the more government grows its presence as a means of regulating behaviors.
The key to maintaining liberty is to understand that the roots of tyranny grow and spread in a godless society. As America grows more secular — as America turns from God and church and traditional values and morals — so crime spikes and lawlessness spreads and the people cry for government to do something, do something, do something. But since crime is a matter of the heart and soul, and therefore the cure lies in church and with God, government’s attempts to cure societal ills are Band-Aids, at best. Laws are not so necessary for the virtuous.
Neither is surveillance.
Spy cameras are aimed at catching criminals, not innocents.
But Flock cameras capture information on criminals and innocents alike. Are we China? Should we be behaving like the CCP?
“Opposition mounts to police camera ‘surveillance state’ in Dallas-Fort Worth,” the Dallas Observer wrote.
“ACLU of Massachusetts Releases New Toolkit to Help People Challenge Flock Cameras in Their Communities,” Amherst Indy wrote.
“Damaged Flock camera in North Carolina town sparks online debate over surveillance tech,” North Carolina’s WLOS wrote.
“More Flock cameras cut down in Houston amid some privacy concerns,” ABC13 Houston wrote.
And then this one, from USA Today: “Flock camera audit program reveals misuse by Georgia law enforcement” — a headline above a story on five police officers from Albany who were charged with various violations for allegedly using the license plate data for personal use.
Those who don’t mind trading freedom for safety and security say that innocent individuals have nothing to worry about — that those who’ve committed no crimes shouldn’t care if their personal data is collected.
But that’s not an argument that belongs in America.
In America, it’s citizens who hold the power, and government officials, including police, who serve the citizens — with service defined primarily as defending the Constitution and its bylaws from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Rampant, random data collection and surveillance of citizens reverse those roles. Such spying puts citizens in the default category of suspect, and government entities as the gatekeepers of data that could be used as easily for suitable causes, such as convicting criminals.
The problem is that granting the government the power to collect, hold, disseminate, destroy or sell that data, all without having to do the work of showing a court why that data is needed and for what specific reasons, is asking citizens to put all their trust in government.
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help” — as Ronald Reagan famously warned, in reference to what he said were the “nine most terrifying words in the English language.”
Citizens shouldn’t have to ask government for permission to keep certain information private. A rightful role — a constitutional position — is for government to ask citizens for permission. And that’s called the Fourth Amendment. That’s called the Fifth Amendment. Better yet, that’s called God-given individual rights and liberties. No time like the 250th to reclaim this core component of our country’s greatness.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast “Bold and Blunt” by clicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter and podcast by clicking HERE. Her latest book, “God-Given Or Bust: Defeating Marxism and Saving America With Biblical Truths,” is available by clicking HERE.
Follow the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.