Letter to the Editor: The Importance of Choice

To the Editor:

This is a call to protect liberty and privacy in Hopkinton. Liberty is freedom of choice. That concept is foundational to our country.

Every American is endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The freedom to choose our religion, where we live, whom we love, and how we express ourselves is protected by our Constitution.

Freedom of Choice Is Foundational

In 1773, American colonists had the option to pay less for tea. Instead, they chose to destroy that tea and boycott the company selling it. Why? Because they believed they were being forced to buy from a specific company, eliminating their freedom of choice and, ultimately, their voice.

Today, we continue to honor the legacy of those New England colonists because we, too, have a voice when our rights and freedoms are challenged. I am asking the Hopkinton Select Board to listen to that voice and reconsider the town’s relationship with Flock.

Flock Cameras and Fourth Amendment Concerns

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures and establishes important safeguards against government intrusion into our private lives. Yet, as technology advances, the ability to collect, store, analyze, and share information about ordinary citizens has expanded dramatically.

Flock makes this kind of surveillance easier and more pervasive. That should concern every resident of Hopkinton, regardless of political affiliation or personal views on law enforcement.

There have been numerous reports of misuse, unauthorized data access, and concerns about the scope of surveillance made possible by Flock technology. These concerns have been raised by communities and documented by news organizations across the country.

Convenience Is Not Enough

These concerns should not be dismissed simply because the technology is convenient. Instead, we should ask whether the benefits justify the risks to privacy and civil liberties.

We must also consider what happens in the future. Technology companies regularly change their terms of service and data policies. How can residents be certain that Flock’s policies will not change? The company could potentially expand how data is stored, accessed, or used beyond what the public originally understood.

The Hopkinton Police Department may promise today that it will not share Flock data. But what happens when it faces a subpoena? What happens if a future administration demands access to the information? What happens if the terms governing the technology change?

A promise made today cannot guarantee what happens tomorrow.

The interim police chief has acknowledged that crimes can be solved without Flock cameras and that investigators would ultimately reach the same conclusions. The argument, then, is that Flock makes the process more efficient. But efficiency alone is not enough to justify expanding government surveillance.

The question before the Select Board is not whether Flock can help solve crimes. It is whether the convenience and efficiency it provides are worth the cost to our privacy and civil liberties.

I believe they are not.

Balancing Public Safety and Individual Rights

Our police officers are entrusted with investigating crimes and protecting our community. We should support them and provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs. But we should also expect our government to balance public safety with individual rights.

The money spent installing and maintaining Flock cameras, as well as the time spent reviewing surveillance data, could instead support traditional investigative work and put officers where they can make a direct difference in our community.

Building Public Trust in Hopkinton

Perhaps most importantly, this issue is about trust.

The Hopkinton Police Department is asking residents to trust that it will follow all applicable laws and regulations governing Flock. But trust must be earned. These cameras were installed without adequate prior notice or meaningful public input, and residents are now being asked to trust that the system will be used responsibly. That is not how public trust is built.

The Select Board has an opportunity to set a different standard. You can say that in Hopkinton, protecting residents means protecting both their physical safety and their civil liberties. You can say that our town will not normalize a system in which residents’ movements are routinely captured and stored simply because doing so makes investigations more convenient.

Flock cameras create the unsettling feeling that we are all being watched and treated as potential suspects. That is backward. In a free society, the government should have a compelling reason to investigate an individual—not the ability to collect information on everyone just in case that information becomes useful.

A Request for Transparent Review

Please do the right thing for the residents of Hopkinton. End the town’s contract with Flock and remove the existing cameras.

If the town ultimately decides otherwise, I urge the Select Board to conduct a transparent public review of the program, including its costs, data-retention policies, access protocols, potential information sharing, and the safeguards that will remain in place if Flock or government policies change.

Hopkinton is a community that values both safety and freedom. We should not have to sacrifice one for the other.

Concerned Resident
Hopkinton