00:00:01
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm telling you Boston's niche radio.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back everyone, think very much, Dan Watkins. We're going to move to another guest, someone I've known for a long time, Attorney Dan Haley. He is flock Safety's chief legal officer. And if the name flock Safety is one that is familiar to you, is because of some controversies that this company has found themselves in. I think flock safety cameras, and I'm sure some of you will disagree with me, are going to be assets to any community in which they are utilized. Dan Haley, Welcome to Nightside.
00:00:46
Speaker 1: How are you, Dan, I'm great, Thanks for having me on.
00:00:50
Speaker 2: Well, so let's talk about the controversies. First of all, you know how I feel about your company and how I feel about public safety. I mean, we all live in a world where bad things happen to good people, and I think flock cameras in a community are a deterrent to crime, and if they don't deter the crime, they in many cases can help solve the crime. Correct me if I'm wrong. But ten thousand missing people were located in this country last year with the help of flock Safety cameras. Is that accurate?
00:01:32
Speaker 1: That is accurate more than ten thousand, and that's everything from kidnapped kids to elderly people who wander off, everything in between. But yes, that is one very impactful measure of the impact that these technologies have in the communities that we're lucky to serve.
00:01:52
Speaker 2: How many communities and in how many states give us a sense of the width and the breath of your company.
00:02:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, roughly six thousand communities nationwide, forty eight states, and that's one measure. But most of the communities that have flock routinely assist in the solving of crimes in their neighboring communities. So in reality, the impact of the technology is much broader than just those six thousand communities, and we're growing all the time because the technology is very impactful. We believe that everyone deserves to live in a safe community, and to the point of the controversy, Dan, we also believe that everyone's right to privacy should be respected, and we build these tools to achieve both. A lot of the controversy rests on this notion that you have to choose one or the other, and we just fundamentally reject that dichotomy. You can have both.
00:02:54
Speaker 2: Okay, I do want to want to talk about that. But just a little history of the company. How long has this company been in existence and how did it begin?
00:03:06
Speaker 1: Nine years And it began in Atlanta when the founder of the company, a guy named Garrett Langley, had a crime spree in his neighborhood. A ring of criminals was breaking into cars, stealing the cars or stealing the contents of the cars. And he's an engineer. He has a bunch of friends who are engineers, and they were puzzled by the lack of evidence that the police had to follow up and investigate these crimes. And they sat down literally, you know, it's like so many other technology companies, literally sat down in a garage and built a prototype using a camera and a cell phone and a solar panel, and came up with the first flock camera, installed it in the neighborhood, and quite soon after that stolen car ring was broken up and it's since then the rest is history.
00:03:57
Speaker 2: As they say, that's the prototype, if you will, for a business that now is serving six thousand communities and more in forty eight states. Okay, let's let's talk as lawyers for a second. You're a lawyer, you're more experienced than I am. I'm a lawyer, but one of the things you learn in law school is that we do have protections through the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. But we also learn that once we venture out into public, we lose some of that privacy. So if we, you know, if we're going to, you know, smoke a marijuana cigarette in our house in a community where it's illegal, as long as you keep the shades drawn, you're probably going to get away with it if you go to the local mall and light up. And I'm not a marijuana smoker, so I don't want anybody to come to that conclusion. But if you go to a local mall and light up, you could be you could be someone could call a compensate. That guy was just well going to join Why is it that somehow tell us about who the folks are, who you were fighting and why? And I also want to compare your fight with the fight against another type of technology, shot spotter, And so what what is the you know, you good lawyer, you've got to know the argument on the other side. What are they arguing when they go into these communities and try to stop you from from becoming helping the community protect themselves or or negotiated country. What what is the argument that that some groups are are claiming. What's what's the toughest argument that that you have to deal against against with?
00:05:53
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, dan uh. In a lot of communities, their significant opposition, And I can say with one hundred percent confidence that opposition is always based on some pretty fundamental misconceptions about the technology. So you're right, there is no what's called the legal term is reasonable expectation of privacy when you're out in public. But the word reasonable is important. You do have a right not to be tracked, not to be followed. And so when the courts analyze this technology, the question they ask is are these cameras able to track the whole of a person's movements and are they able to reveal the intimate details of a person's life. This is not an academic question. It's been asked of our court system more than forty times, literally four zero times, And every single court in red states, in blue states, in purple states, big cities, small towns, nationwide, every single court that has looked at this technology and its use has determined that it cannot track the totality of a person's movements, It cannot reveal the intimate details of a person's life. And the reason is very simple. These cameras take still photos of the exterior of cars that pass. They do not take pictures of people's face. They do not employce facial recognition. They have no idea who's in the car. It is literally the exterior of the car. That is the same thing that you would see if you were standing on a corner smoking a joint and you watch the car drive by. And the courts over and over and over have determined there is no expectation of privacy in the extern exterior of your vehicle, certainly not in your license plate, which is required to be appended to your car by laws, specifically to correlate that automobile to it to its owner. But people are told by various advocacy groups that this technology is tracking them. It's not true. People are told that this technology is creating a massive nationwide database that can be searched to determine where any of us has gone. That is simply not true. The technology was built to provide transparency and accountability all photographs are deleted within thirty days, unless by law in a certain town they're required to be kept for a different period of time ninety nine point nine nine nine. I don't even know how many nimes percent of the photographs exist and are deleted never having been viewed. They are only viewed if a police officer has reason to believe that a particular vehicle has been used in commission of a crime. So it is it is. People think this sounds trite, but it is literally true that if you have not committed a crime, if you have not done something to give authorities reason to believe you've committed a crime, flock has no idea you exist, the municipal idea.
00:08:57
Speaker 2: Let's take a hypothetical. A liquor store gets uh robbed. A couple of guys walking with guns empty the cash register. They're in and out quickly. Their faces are masked. Okay, yeah, but the the camera that the liquor store has, maybe on the outside of the liquor store, shows that the car was whatever, a red something. Uh what do the police and you you have flot cameras do the do the police call you guys and say, you know, look, we just had a liquor store robbed at this location. Uh, and we're looking for a car red whatever whatever it is, red mosl what whatever? The cars? I don't want to uh. Is that how it works?
00:09:44
Speaker 1: No, we're not in the middle of it. So in that situation, the police would query their system. They would enter whatever information they have, whether it be a partial license plate, a full license plate, the make and model of the car, any other distinguishing features, and they would warry the system and the system would show any hits that match that query in the vicinity of that liquor store, and so they could determine at that time or after. Frankly, so the data is generally preserved for thirty days. That's a very powerful use case actually, because most criminals will they'll case the location where they're they're going to commit the crimes, so they'll go around several times, they'll stay in the area over several nights or whatever, and so the system will surface that here's a vehicle, here's the license plate. The police can then access the other data that they have access to as law enforcement to determine who owns that vehicle, and they can determine that they have probable cause and go serve a warrant and arrest that person if there's reason to do so. But the point is what FLOCK does is it creates the lead. It does not create probable cause. It does not say the system doesn't say, hey, cop, go arrest that person. It's just a piece of evidence to be evaluated.
00:11:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it could have been if somebody happened to be taking a picture of the liquor store at the moment of the robbery, just for the fun of it, because they thought whatever, and they happen to have a picture of the car with the license plate, and they heard about it, they I guess, could call the police to say, gee, I happen to be standing out and I saw these two guys running with masks. I mean, you know, I just don't get who feels aggrieved by this, But I guess this is Dan Haley. He is the chief legal officer of Flock Safety, Flock cameras. All of that, We're going to take a break. If you have a question, a legitimate well, if you have any question, you're more than welcome to call. It's as simple as that. I think that all of us can there all people's privacy of being invaded. Well, you know, the privacy of the liquor store owner gets in that kay hypothetical gets invaded by guys with the couple of guns. They probably not their first rodeo, maybe won't be their last rodeo. And if there is technical a technology which can help the police solve the crime UH and bring someone to justice, what's the problem someone can if you can construct an example which will show that there is a flaw in the system, bring it on six one, seven, four ten thirty six one seven ninety, Come on right back on Nightside.
00:12:28
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
00:12:34
Speaker 2: My guest is Dan Haley. He's the chief legal officer of Flock Safety Cameras. Dan I mentioned UH shot Spotter, which is a different company from yours. UH. That's a company that triangulates the sounds of gunshot UH and helps police realize that there has been a gunshot or more fired UH in a general only specific but general location. And there was a case in Cambridge where they got rid of shot Spotter in March and wouldn't know it. Sometime in June, a city worker, a DPW worker, left his house at four in the morning confronted by some armed men. I no idea of the circumstances they had made an arrest. By the way, in this case, this guy was shot. He died in the gutter, bled out to death because no one the shot spot had been taken down, and it wasn't for an hour and fifteen minutes later before a jogger or somebody going to work noticed that there was a body line in the mill Street and that guy might be alive today if maybe shot spotter had been operational, and if the police had responded and found him and they could have helped his name, was mister Batista survive? I'm sure that there are stories like that that that deal with with your case. Is there a region of the country that is becoming more suspicious or is this is the problem that you have with with criticisms. Are they the same sort of criticisms across the country or is it in certain regions that it's more prevalent.
00:14:25
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, it's it's it seems like it's prevalent because there's a lot of press coverage of it right now, But in point of fact, there are still more communities adding this technology by far than removing it. But the pattern is very similar. So what happened to shot spot Er and Cambridge? And by the way, we provide the same technology and it is very precise. When a gun is fired and that technology exists, the police know exactly where that gun shot was fired and can go.
00:14:55
Speaker 2: What do you call your technology?
00:14:59
Speaker 1: Shot that it's it's shot detection, uh, and it's it's frequently installed in the same communities with the ALPRs. But that is a tragic situation, and we have seen similar situations. One that comes to mind is Olympia, Washington removed its flock cameras and within a couple of weeks had a shooting and Olympia PD actually used a nearby community's flock cameras to apprehend the shooters. But this kind of thing happens all the time. It's a shame when it happens. And again I would just emphasized if I lived in these communities and I believed what activists tell people about these technologies, I would oppose them to. So what I'm.
00:15:48
Speaker 2: Telling people are they saying that, Look if if if you're a banker and you decide to go out to lunch someday with your secretary somehow it's going to be all over the newspaper, the.
00:15:59
Speaker 1: Nag, you know, they're they're they're telling them, they're telling them that if these cameras are tracking everyone at all times, they're saying that they're creating a massive national database that is searchable at any time to find anyone's location. These things are simply not true, and this is important in this particular political moment we're existing in.
00:16:20
Speaker 2: Uh.
00:16:21
Speaker 1: They say that ICE uses these technologies to to find undocumented immigrants, and that also is not true with regard to Flock. We don't have any contracts with or any relationship with any of the immigration authorities. Now that's not to say that in communities where you know, the community chooses to participate to cooperate with immigration authorities, I'm not We don't cast judgments on that. But people use fear of the situation with ICE to drive up opposition to these technologies and these things they simply aren't true. Dan that it's not that they're partially true, it's not that they're uh, they're you know, maybe exaggerating, they're just not true things. And you know that, to my mind, creates an opportunity for us and also it means that we're not doing an effective job getting the truth out there. When a community takes out these cameras or or shot detection technology based on misinformation, that's a failure on our part and we've got to do better. And that's part of the reason I was so grateful to be asked to come on your show.
00:17:27
Speaker 2: Okay, if people are concerned about government tracking them, is what you're really saying, is that using flow cameras to track people, Okay, it sounds to me that they would be better and more effective if they looked at the toll system on major road because.
00:17:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, or the or the phone in their pocket.
00:17:49
Speaker 2: The phone, Yeah, absolutely, you want to know was that? What is? But what I'm saying is all you drive on the Massachusetts Turnpike, go through the Brighton tolls one twenty eight. It is unbelievable. Look what I want to do, Dan, is I got callers. I want them to post tough questions to you whatever they want, or they can say that they think it's the best thing since slice spread. It seems to me there's no downside. I'm trying to figure out what the downside is. Maybe there will be some camera, there'll be some folks from the American Civil Liberties Union who will be able to explain that these cameras really adjust a baby step away from us becoming Nazi Germany or so. I just don't understand what people are thinking. We have technology. I know of a case in Brookline a few years ago where a woman had been raped I believe in Alston, and she had a description of a truck and this is I think probably fifteen or more years ago, and that truck was seen on a city owned camera of some sort or town owned camera, and a prosecution and sued it. I believe there was a conviction because she had specified the type of truck that that she was raped in. So let's let's take a quick break. We got we got the nine thirty news coming up, and Dan Haley, buckle up. Let's see what my audience has to say. Maybe they'll like the idea as I do, or maybe they'll disagree with both you and me, and they'll they'll hit you with an impossible scenario.
00:19:23
Speaker 1: But I don't that sounds great, Dan, Thank you, all right, He's.
00:19:26
Speaker 2: Up to the challenge. Folks. Six one. The only line that is open right now is six one seven two, five, four, ten thirty. We will get to John, Ted and Michael. You stay right there. You're gonna go to phone. We will go to phone calls right after the news break at the bottom of the hour. It's Night Side with.
00:19:45
Speaker 1: Boston's News Radio.
00:19:47
Speaker 2: My guess is, Dan Haley, there's an example that Madison just talked about that that newscast cameras that now will catch people who are speeding in specific areas. I guess yes, they're gonna lose some privacy there, Dan Haley. Are you folks involved in any of that activity.
00:20:07
Speaker 1: No, we do not do traffic enforcement.
00:20:09
Speaker 2: Okay, no, I guess I get that. But again, it's another tool that wouldn't have existed thirty thirty five years ago. Let's go to the phones. People have been very patient, Dan Haley. We'll see what they have to say, and we are going to go first to Ted in Millis, Massachusetts. Ted, you're first in your first st up. You're are with Dan Haley, chief legal Officer of Flock Safety Cameras.
00:20:33
Speaker 3: Go right ahead, Ted, Hi, Dan, and Dan, thanks for taking my call. I think here here's what I'd like to say. I'm it's gonna make a couple of points and Dan, maybe you can get you know, respond to them however you'd like.
00:20:51
Speaker 4: These.
00:20:51
Speaker 3: Everything you said at at around nine o'clock was great, you know, you know captain criminals. I've seen how it can be used for that.
00:21:00
Speaker 1: I totally get it.
00:21:01
Speaker 3: A lot of people are on board with that. The thing that I think bothers everybody is is that the company has been found to be lying. And I know instantly you want to say, no, that's not true. But just a couple examples, and please feel free respond to this in a second.
00:21:19
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's let's take them one at a time, Ted, Ted, let's take them one at a time so that we maintain a little order and decorum and people can focus on the points you're trying to make.
00:21:28
Speaker 3: Go right ahead, Sure, what about the company was caught falsely claiming endorsements or collaborative working relationships with groups like the a C l U, which it never actually partnered with.
00:21:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I assume you mean the recent post by the a C l U that said that we have claims that we were endorsed by the ALU and we haven't. And that's, first of all, it's not what we said. We said we routinely work with state level ACLU attorneys on legislative efforts. And that is absolutely true. The ACU is a very large organization. There's the federal organization and then there are state organizations, in some cases local, and we do routinely work with and sit with in legislative offices with ACLU staff, and more often than not, Ted, we agree on legislative proposed legislative provisions to regulate the use of this technology. We are supportive of regulation of this technology. Just this year, more than well maybe not more than ten, I believe exactly ten states enacted laws that regulate this technology in various ways, and we were very active in the efforts to shape those laws, as was on a state level the ACLU. So that that is not that is not an untruth. That is a that is a truth.
00:23:01
Speaker 2: Thank you, by the way, I think that's a great clarification. And I understand you know, Ted, when you talk, you've heard the old story that if you're at a party and there's fifty people there, ten people get together and someone has a joke and they tell the person next to them, then the other person tells them, and by time you get to the ten person the joke is totally screwed up. So I think that's a pretty reasonable and rational explanation where I don't know where you read that they claim to have coordinated and maybe that word is appropriate, coordinated in conjunction with the ac OU when a legislature was going to, you know, adopt something, and they both wanted to be have some midpoint. So thank you for accepting for at least listening to Dan Haley's explanation. And I know Dan very well he would he would not mislead you. What's the second pointed to?
00:24:00
Speaker 1: Sure?
00:24:01
Speaker 3: Sure? And and and by the way, this is a hot topic in the town of Millis right now, so I'm I'm dying to ask these the next the next one. And I'm sure you've probably heard of this issue, uh, because Google brought this one up quickly. The in Oshkosh, where the I think the issue was lined supposedly or allegedly lying to city council flock line to city council where they rescinded the flock contract, claiming that the camp because flock is what they said, falsely claimed if camera system did not generate travel heat maps of vehicles. And I know you kind of already addressed that a little earlier. But why they you know, it says that they falsely they claimed that flock lie. What do you say about that?
00:24:49
Speaker 2: Okay, so this is I assume you're talking about Yes.
00:24:55
Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead, Dan, Yes, and Ted. I'll start by saying, my memory this is imperfect. So if I sound like I'm being general, I apologize. But that was a situation where our staff was answering questions live from audience member, citizens and from counselors. They asked the specific question in the context of which our staff interpreted the question is dealing with exactly what I was just talking about tracking of vehicles, real time tracking of vehicles, and said correctly that we do not do that. Now, there is a feature on our website that is called heat map, and so someone saw that and said, oh, look at that. They lied. We then, of course offered to sit down with the city council and clarify what we had been what answer we had intended to give, what we thought we were addressing. They declined that offer and decided to rescind the contract. Our view is that was unfortunate, it was a misunderstanding, But I actually do understand how it happened. Very often these hearings are tensious. There's a lot of people who yell, unfortunately, and there's not always a lot of very clear communications. So this is a misunderstanding. It was not a lie, but I understand you know how that outcome happened. That was unfortunate.
00:26:16
Speaker 2: Ded Are there are there any other examples that you'd like to say? With all due.
00:26:21
Speaker 5: Respect, I think that that Dan has given you has given you one honest responses, and I think the first response probably was more satisfactory to you.
00:26:33
Speaker 2: But are you okay with with what he said? You have a follow up question?
00:26:37
Speaker 3: Yeah, I look, I think there. I think the responses from Dan are very fair, and I certainly don't have the ability, you know, right now in the heat of the moment to like research and you know, you know, get the facts right on my side. But the only other thing, and he did mentioned it before that the last thing is was there, truthfully, was there any history of FLOCK sharing their data of citizens with various federal agencies in a way that was not clear to the citizens of the US.
00:27:11
Speaker 1: Yeah, poorly worded there, but yeah, but I understand, I understand what you're getting at set and it's it's an important point. It's a very important point. Flock doesn't share data. Flock enables the sharing of data by our users. So if Millis uses Flock cameras Millis chooses who they share with, they can share with literally every other Flock user in the country. I mean they turn on what's called National look up and that that is what that affects. Or they can share just with Medway, just with Holliston, just with Natick and Framingham. It doesn't it is entirely dependent on Millis. Flock does not make that choice, and Flock has never made that choice. The data is owned by the municipality, controlled by the municipality, and sharing settings are entirely in the control of the admin in the municipality. That's another one of those things that unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation about that on the Internet and it's deliberately circulated to try and dissuade the use of this technology.
00:28:17
Speaker 2: All right, ted, great questions, well.
00:28:20
Speaker 1: Really great questions ed.
00:28:21
Speaker 2: Thank you. I hope that you give uh or your folks in Millie, which is a great community, gives Flock and an opportunity to answer the questions honestly, thanks, Ded, appreciate it.
00:28:32
Speaker 4: Well, thank you both.
00:28:33
Speaker 2: You're welcome. Let me go next to John and Saugus. John in Saugus, you were next on Nice that with Dan Haley, chief Legal Officer of Flock Safety Cameras.
00:28:41
Speaker 6: Go ahad ahead, John, Hey, guys, thank you for taking my call. You know, I when I look at the whole overall pitshup and you know there's a lot of distrust with that government for good reason. You know, one of my first questions would be, does flock have facial recognition capabilities?
00:29:01
Speaker 2: No, we do not.
00:29:04
Speaker 1: That's a that's a that's a very simple one.
00:29:06
Speaker 7: No, okay, that's that makes me feel a little better.
00:29:11
Speaker 6: The other thing is I know that they're they're implementing the drone system and a lot of police departments.
00:29:17
Speaker 1: Now is that pot of flock uh flock we do. We do have drona's first responders, So we do have UH drones and yes that is a separate that is a separate service line. Those are actually extraordinarily powerful tools.
00:29:34
Speaker 3: UH.
00:29:34
Speaker 1: They enable first responders, so not just police but fire EMTs to get eyes on an emergency situation. UH orders of magnitude faster than they otherwise would. So we see situations where, for example, just recently, uh there was a nine to one one call shots fired, a domestic incident. The drone went up, arrived on the scene and is able to see the shooter leaving the house and hiding in the bushes and setting up waiting for the police officers, And so when the officers arrived, they were able to apprehend the suspect without anyone being harmed, whereas had the drone not been there, someone easily could have gotten shot.
00:30:17
Speaker 2: What a great what a great protection for the police officers in that situation. We've seen so many stories where police show up and they're ambushed and in many in several cases police officers killed. That is a brilliant use of a tool. Go right ahead, John, I hope you always excited about that as I am. So yeah.
00:30:39
Speaker 6: So you know, I've been aware of that for a while now, and I totally agree with that. And also you know the ones I'm in Boston. You know they've had the gun ones up for many years, and I agree with that. I just failed that, you know, private businesses for the regular flock, Like I totally agree with the drones. You know, I think everyone will probably feel the same way that we don't want to be, you know, four seven out in public.
00:31:09
Speaker 1: You know, neither do I John John.
00:31:16
Speaker 2: When I was a TV reporter back in the day, we would often go out and you know, if it was a snowstorm or a weather related event or in a beautiful day, would be would say, get us some pictures for the weather guys, uh, for the weather staff of whatever the conditions are. And I would have people come up to me and I'm there with my cameraman or you can't take my picture in public or privacy rights, and I would simply say to him, I'm really sorry to explain to you that we have every right to take your picture. Now, if you want to ask me politely not to take your picture, I don't know. Maybe you're on the FBI's Most Wanted liss. We'll be We'll be happy not to take your picture. Oh And most people will read, no, I'm going into the u FI is no you you want my picture? Okay? I mean.
00:32:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get it, I get it.
00:32:10
Speaker 6: But you know what hats off to the drone, you know, capabilities and everything.
00:32:14
Speaker 7: I'm really you know, that's that's a great thing.
00:32:17
Speaker 2: You know, that's a that's a great suggestion. I was unaware of that. And can you imagine somebody hiding around the back of a building looking to come around and uh and wipe up. You know. It's also what they call suicide by cop. The ida by the idea is that some people are so desperate they want to be killed, but they want to take a couple of cops with them and they don't care if they get killed. And so the police officers with the information, Hey, the guys hiding behind the garage. You know, it gives the police a little bit of an advantage, and they deserve the advantage. John loved your call. Thank you for the example.
00:32:52
Speaker 1: Thank you, guys.
00:32:53
Speaker 2: You soon take a very quick break. My guest is Dan Haley. Dan is the chief legal officer of Flock Safety Cameras. Bring on any questions you want coming back right after this.
00:33:04
Speaker 1: You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
00:33:09
Speaker 2: Okay, we're getting a little tight on time here, so let's move it a little more quickly and we go to Michael in up in Manchester by the Sea. Michael, you're next on Nice Side with Dan Haley, chief Legal officer of flocks safe fluck safety cameras.
00:33:24
Speaker 4: Gentlemen, Thank you, You're welcome, go right ahead, all right, you can hear me? Okay, perfect. So my question really is based on security in current events. We've seen some bad actors and in law enforcement and I want harmercent back to blue. But they have access to a tool that they can use for their own purposes. And then knowing that an administrator is in control of it, what type of certifications does the administrator the administrator go through? And I'm sure and I'm absolutely positive there's plenty of security measures on your on your side, Dan, but what more can you do to mitigate bad actors from accessing flock? Specifically coming from a world of AI where Hugging Face was recently hacked by a red team, so being a tracktrow of intell I mean, what what what are we doing here?
00:34:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm I'm really glad you asked that question. Let me let me answer it two ways. First of all, with regard to bad actors within a police department, that does happen. Police officers are humans and some of them occasionally abuse their authority. And so we've got three different, three different aspects built into the tool to catch that. First of all, every time the system is used, there has to be a reason code entered and that that corresponds to what's called a diverse code. It's an offense category, so there has to be a crime that's being investigated has to be entered there, and the officer's user name is logged. Second, each use is preserved in an audit log permanently, and that document is a public record. So you literally can't misuse the system without creating evidence of that misuse. It's impossible. And third, we recently rolled out AI assistance so that municipalities like Millis where the last caller was from, or maybe those the first caller Millis can turn on the audit assistance and the AI can continuously scan the audit logs and flag if there's any abnormal use and to say, you might take a look at this, this search pattern is suspicious or abnormal. So that's for internal external. We have enterprise grade, top of the line information security protecting our systems. We require multi factor authentication for every user to log into the system, so it's protected between behind multiple layers. And then I guess I'll circle back that audit log would also show immediately if a bad actor gained access to the system and started conducting searches.
00:36:13
Speaker 2: Pretty comprehensive answer, Michael, I appreciate it very much. I want to get one more call in if I can at least.
00:36:18
Speaker 4: Okay, well, thank you very much.
00:36:21
Speaker 2: Thank you, Michael. Great question, really good.
00:36:23
Speaker 4: Question, quod night.
00:36:26
Speaker 2: Let me go next to Steven in Boston. Steven, you gotta push the time a little bit here because we're getting tight on time. Go ahead, Steven.
00:36:33
Speaker 7: Okay, some quick rapid fire questions. So flock would be considered a business, correct, sure? Okay, So the towns you operate in, do you do you get a business license in each one of those towns and pay revenue as any other business. And my other follow up question, let's take you.
00:36:50
Speaker 2: One at a time. Go ahead, go ahead, Dan, we want to take a related to Steven. Steven. Let's take them one at a time. Okay.
00:36:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're we're a vendor to the municipalities we serve.
00:37:01
Speaker 7: Okay, So you have a business license like a landscaper or myself, who's a contractor. You pull a business we're not doing.
00:37:10
Speaker 1: We we are a vendor to the municipality. We're not we're not an established business in the town.
00:37:17
Speaker 7: But I don't see any electric meters attached, So who pays for the electricity?
00:37:22
Speaker 1: There's solar panels attached to them, so nobody.
00:37:26
Speaker 7: Okay, yeah, so yeah, That's what I was wondering, is, so, do you pay any excise tax for the real estate that these poles take, like the telephone company or the electric company pays a fee for the land that they use for the telephone poles or is that just a whisky.
00:37:42
Speaker 1: Wash depending on the municipality. We follow each municipality's permitting rules, and so if there's a fee associated in any given municipality that varies by by jurisdiction, do you know what.
00:37:58
Speaker 7: The average town would receive bad in the taxes? So do you know how much of how that's based is based on square footage or just per camera?
00:38:06
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's probably important. It's probably important to note that these cameras are leased by the municipalities, so that they're not they're they're not they're they're not our property being installed product.
00:38:20
Speaker 7: So it's just I just didn't understand how that go.
00:38:23
Speaker 2: I mean, if for example, let's assume the town hired a private security company to you know, to to maybe I don't know, uh, save cost of paying pensions to police officers, and they have some uh some some way in which they can use private security road details or whatever. I don't think that business is going to be you don't want to hear the answer, Steve, and so I get it, but I'm gonna give it anyway. I don't think that that town which is which is basically is providing a service to the town, a security additional service to the town. I don't think that they then are paying like a ten percent tax of whatever they get from the town. They negotiate a contract with the town, just like when you, as a homeowner, negotiates a contract with someone to cut your grass or whatever, or to trim your hedges. They're a vendor. They're selling a product. They're selling grass. By selling vendors, they.
00:39:19
Speaker 7: Sell the product. Wouldn't that product only be associated with the public building.
00:39:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, we didn't hang up on them. We don't hang up on people, even people who you know are coming. Thank you for taking the questions. I'm sorry to the callers who we didn't get to, but we'd love to periodically have you back here. Dan, because I think you're a great representative of the company, and I think people need to wake up and smell the roses and realize that this is a service that's only going to keep communities a little safer. I only wish that Tucson, Arizona had flocked cameras in position the night that eighty four year old Nancy got Three was kidnapped.
00:40:01
Speaker 1: Maybe you'll believe me, we got a lot of imbound on that. Dan, thank you so much for having me, and I just end by saying, if flock is controversial in your community, I hope you'll go to flocksafety dot com and learn the facts and reach out to us. We'd be happy to send someone to your city council meeting and answer your questions. We love to get our facts out there.
00:40:24
Speaker 2: Absolutely, Dan Haley, thank you so much. When we get back right after the ten o'clock news. If you think you had a bad day today, your day was a great day compared to Anthony Fauci's day. We'll be back after the ten
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm telling you Boston's niche radio.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back everyone, think very much, Dan Watkins. We're going to move to another guest, someone I've known for a long time, Attorney Dan Haley. He is flock Safety's chief legal officer. And if the name flock Safety is one that is familiar to you, is because of some controversies that this company has found themselves in. I think flock safety cameras, and I'm sure some of you will disagree with me, are going to be assets to any community in which they are utilized. Dan Haley, Welcome to Nightside.
00:00:46
Speaker 1: How are you, Dan, I'm great, Thanks for having me on.
00:00:50
Speaker 2: Well, so let's talk about the controversies. First of all, you know how I feel about your company and how I feel about public safety. I mean, we all live in a world where bad things happen to good people, and I think flock cameras in a community are a deterrent to crime, and if they don't deter the crime, they in many cases can help solve the crime. Correct me if I'm wrong. But ten thousand missing people were located in this country last year with the help of flock Safety cameras. Is that accurate?
00:01:32
Speaker 1: That is accurate more than ten thousand, and that's everything from kidnapped kids to elderly people who wander off, everything in between. But yes, that is one very impactful measure of the impact that these technologies have in the communities that we're lucky to serve.
00:01:52
Speaker 2: How many communities and in how many states give us a sense of the width and the breath of your company.
00:02:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, roughly six thousand communities nationwide, forty eight states, and that's one measure. But most of the communities that have flock routinely assist in the solving of crimes in their neighboring communities. So in reality, the impact of the technology is much broader than just those six thousand communities, and we're growing all the time because the technology is very impactful. We believe that everyone deserves to live in a safe community, and to the point of the controversy, Dan, we also believe that everyone's right to privacy should be respected, and we build these tools to achieve both. A lot of the controversy rests on this notion that you have to choose one or the other, and we just fundamentally reject that dichotomy. You can have both.
00:02:54
Speaker 2: Okay, I do want to want to talk about that. But just a little history of the company. How long has this company been in existence and how did it begin?
00:03:06
Speaker 1: Nine years And it began in Atlanta when the founder of the company, a guy named Garrett Langley, had a crime spree in his neighborhood. A ring of criminals was breaking into cars, stealing the cars or stealing the contents of the cars. And he's an engineer. He has a bunch of friends who are engineers, and they were puzzled by the lack of evidence that the police had to follow up and investigate these crimes. And they sat down literally, you know, it's like so many other technology companies, literally sat down in a garage and built a prototype using a camera and a cell phone and a solar panel, and came up with the first flock camera, installed it in the neighborhood, and quite soon after that stolen car ring was broken up and it's since then the rest is history.
00:03:57
Speaker 2: As they say, that's the prototype, if you will, for a business that now is serving six thousand communities and more in forty eight states. Okay, let's let's talk as lawyers for a second. You're a lawyer, you're more experienced than I am. I'm a lawyer, but one of the things you learn in law school is that we do have protections through the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. But we also learn that once we venture out into public, we lose some of that privacy. So if we, you know, if we're going to, you know, smoke a marijuana cigarette in our house in a community where it's illegal, as long as you keep the shades drawn, you're probably going to get away with it if you go to the local mall and light up. And I'm not a marijuana smoker, so I don't want anybody to come to that conclusion. But if you go to a local mall and light up, you could be you could be someone could call a compensate. That guy was just well going to join Why is it that somehow tell us about who the folks are, who you were fighting and why? And I also want to compare your fight with the fight against another type of technology, shot spotter, And so what what is the you know, you good lawyer, you've got to know the argument on the other side. What are they arguing when they go into these communities and try to stop you from from becoming helping the community protect themselves or or negotiated country. What what is the argument that that some groups are are claiming. What's what's the toughest argument that that you have to deal against against with?
00:05:53
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, dan uh. In a lot of communities, their significant opposition, And I can say with one hundred percent confidence that opposition is always based on some pretty fundamental misconceptions about the technology. So you're right, there is no what's called the legal term is reasonable expectation of privacy when you're out in public. But the word reasonable is important. You do have a right not to be tracked, not to be followed. And so when the courts analyze this technology, the question they ask is are these cameras able to track the whole of a person's movements and are they able to reveal the intimate details of a person's life. This is not an academic question. It's been asked of our court system more than forty times, literally four zero times, And every single court in red states, in blue states, in purple states, big cities, small towns, nationwide, every single court that has looked at this technology and its use has determined that it cannot track the totality of a person's movements, It cannot reveal the intimate details of a person's life. And the reason is very simple. These cameras take still photos of the exterior of cars that pass. They do not take pictures of people's face. They do not employce facial recognition. They have no idea who's in the car. It is literally the exterior of the car. That is the same thing that you would see if you were standing on a corner smoking a joint and you watch the car drive by. And the courts over and over and over have determined there is no expectation of privacy in the extern exterior of your vehicle, certainly not in your license plate, which is required to be appended to your car by laws, specifically to correlate that automobile to it to its owner. But people are told by various advocacy groups that this technology is tracking them. It's not true. People are told that this technology is creating a massive nationwide database that can be searched to determine where any of us has gone. That is simply not true. The technology was built to provide transparency and accountability all photographs are deleted within thirty days, unless by law in a certain town they're required to be kept for a different period of time ninety nine point nine nine nine. I don't even know how many nimes percent of the photographs exist and are deleted never having been viewed. They are only viewed if a police officer has reason to believe that a particular vehicle has been used in commission of a crime. So it is it is. People think this sounds trite, but it is literally true that if you have not committed a crime, if you have not done something to give authorities reason to believe you've committed a crime, flock has no idea you exist, the municipal idea.
00:08:57
Speaker 2: Let's take a hypothetical. A liquor store gets uh robbed. A couple of guys walking with guns empty the cash register. They're in and out quickly. Their faces are masked. Okay, yeah, but the the camera that the liquor store has, maybe on the outside of the liquor store, shows that the car was whatever, a red something. Uh what do the police and you you have flot cameras do the do the police call you guys and say, you know, look, we just had a liquor store robbed at this location. Uh, and we're looking for a car red whatever whatever it is, red mosl what whatever? The cars? I don't want to uh. Is that how it works?
00:09:44
Speaker 1: No, we're not in the middle of it. So in that situation, the police would query their system. They would enter whatever information they have, whether it be a partial license plate, a full license plate, the make and model of the car, any other distinguishing features, and they would warry the system and the system would show any hits that match that query in the vicinity of that liquor store, and so they could determine at that time or after. Frankly, so the data is generally preserved for thirty days. That's a very powerful use case actually, because most criminals will they'll case the location where they're they're going to commit the crimes, so they'll go around several times, they'll stay in the area over several nights or whatever, and so the system will surface that here's a vehicle, here's the license plate. The police can then access the other data that they have access to as law enforcement to determine who owns that vehicle, and they can determine that they have probable cause and go serve a warrant and arrest that person if there's reason to do so. But the point is what FLOCK does is it creates the lead. It does not create probable cause. It does not say the system doesn't say, hey, cop, go arrest that person. It's just a piece of evidence to be evaluated.
00:11:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it could have been if somebody happened to be taking a picture of the liquor store at the moment of the robbery, just for the fun of it, because they thought whatever, and they happen to have a picture of the car with the license plate, and they heard about it, they I guess, could call the police to say, gee, I happen to be standing out and I saw these two guys running with masks. I mean, you know, I just don't get who feels aggrieved by this, But I guess this is Dan Haley. He is the chief legal officer of Flock Safety, Flock cameras. All of that, We're going to take a break. If you have a question, a legitimate well, if you have any question, you're more than welcome to call. It's as simple as that. I think that all of us can there all people's privacy of being invaded. Well, you know, the privacy of the liquor store owner gets in that kay hypothetical gets invaded by guys with the couple of guns. They probably not their first rodeo, maybe won't be their last rodeo. And if there is technical a technology which can help the police solve the crime UH and bring someone to justice, what's the problem someone can if you can construct an example which will show that there is a flaw in the system, bring it on six one, seven, four ten thirty six one seven ninety, Come on right back on Nightside.
00:12:28
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
00:12:34
Speaker 2: My guest is Dan Haley. He's the chief legal officer of Flock Safety Cameras. Dan I mentioned UH shot Spotter, which is a different company from yours. UH. That's a company that triangulates the sounds of gunshot UH and helps police realize that there has been a gunshot or more fired UH in a general only specific but general location. And there was a case in Cambridge where they got rid of shot Spotter in March and wouldn't know it. Sometime in June, a city worker, a DPW worker, left his house at four in the morning confronted by some armed men. I no idea of the circumstances they had made an arrest. By the way, in this case, this guy was shot. He died in the gutter, bled out to death because no one the shot spot had been taken down, and it wasn't for an hour and fifteen minutes later before a jogger or somebody going to work noticed that there was a body line in the mill Street and that guy might be alive today if maybe shot spotter had been operational, and if the police had responded and found him and they could have helped his name, was mister Batista survive? I'm sure that there are stories like that that that deal with with your case. Is there a region of the country that is becoming more suspicious or is this is the problem that you have with with criticisms. Are they the same sort of criticisms across the country or is it in certain regions that it's more prevalent.
00:14:25
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, it's it's it seems like it's prevalent because there's a lot of press coverage of it right now, But in point of fact, there are still more communities adding this technology by far than removing it. But the pattern is very similar. So what happened to shot spot Er and Cambridge? And by the way, we provide the same technology and it is very precise. When a gun is fired and that technology exists, the police know exactly where that gun shot was fired and can go.
00:14:55
Speaker 2: What do you call your technology?
00:14:59
Speaker 1: Shot that it's it's shot detection, uh, and it's it's frequently installed in the same communities with the ALPRs. But that is a tragic situation, and we have seen similar situations. One that comes to mind is Olympia, Washington removed its flock cameras and within a couple of weeks had a shooting and Olympia PD actually used a nearby community's flock cameras to apprehend the shooters. But this kind of thing happens all the time. It's a shame when it happens. And again I would just emphasized if I lived in these communities and I believed what activists tell people about these technologies, I would oppose them to. So what I'm.
00:15:48
Speaker 2: Telling people are they saying that, Look if if if you're a banker and you decide to go out to lunch someday with your secretary somehow it's going to be all over the newspaper, the.
00:15:59
Speaker 1: Nag, you know, they're they're they're telling them, they're telling them that if these cameras are tracking everyone at all times, they're saying that they're creating a massive national database that is searchable at any time to find anyone's location. These things are simply not true, and this is important in this particular political moment we're existing in.
00:16:20
Speaker 2: Uh.
00:16:21
Speaker 1: They say that ICE uses these technologies to to find undocumented immigrants, and that also is not true with regard to Flock. We don't have any contracts with or any relationship with any of the immigration authorities. Now that's not to say that in communities where you know, the community chooses to participate to cooperate with immigration authorities, I'm not We don't cast judgments on that. But people use fear of the situation with ICE to drive up opposition to these technologies and these things they simply aren't true. Dan that it's not that they're partially true, it's not that they're uh, they're you know, maybe exaggerating, they're just not true things. And you know that, to my mind, creates an opportunity for us and also it means that we're not doing an effective job getting the truth out there. When a community takes out these cameras or or shot detection technology based on misinformation, that's a failure on our part and we've got to do better. And that's part of the reason I was so grateful to be asked to come on your show.
00:17:27
Speaker 2: Okay, if people are concerned about government tracking them, is what you're really saying, is that using flow cameras to track people, Okay, it sounds to me that they would be better and more effective if they looked at the toll system on major road because.
00:17:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, or the or the phone in their pocket.
00:17:49
Speaker 2: The phone, Yeah, absolutely, you want to know was that? What is? But what I'm saying is all you drive on the Massachusetts Turnpike, go through the Brighton tolls one twenty eight. It is unbelievable. Look what I want to do, Dan, is I got callers. I want them to post tough questions to you whatever they want, or they can say that they think it's the best thing since slice spread. It seems to me there's no downside. I'm trying to figure out what the downside is. Maybe there will be some camera, there'll be some folks from the American Civil Liberties Union who will be able to explain that these cameras really adjust a baby step away from us becoming Nazi Germany or so. I just don't understand what people are thinking. We have technology. I know of a case in Brookline a few years ago where a woman had been raped I believe in Alston, and she had a description of a truck and this is I think probably fifteen or more years ago, and that truck was seen on a city owned camera of some sort or town owned camera, and a prosecution and sued it. I believe there was a conviction because she had specified the type of truck that that she was raped in. So let's let's take a quick break. We got we got the nine thirty news coming up, and Dan Haley, buckle up. Let's see what my audience has to say. Maybe they'll like the idea as I do, or maybe they'll disagree with both you and me, and they'll they'll hit you with an impossible scenario.
00:19:23
Speaker 1: But I don't that sounds great, Dan, Thank you, all right, He's.
00:19:26
Speaker 2: Up to the challenge. Folks. Six one. The only line that is open right now is six one seven two, five, four, ten thirty. We will get to John, Ted and Michael. You stay right there. You're gonna go to phone. We will go to phone calls right after the news break at the bottom of the hour. It's Night Side with.
00:19:45
Speaker 1: Boston's News Radio.
00:19:47
Speaker 2: My guess is, Dan Haley, there's an example that Madison just talked about that that newscast cameras that now will catch people who are speeding in specific areas. I guess yes, they're gonna lose some privacy there, Dan Haley. Are you folks involved in any of that activity.
00:20:07
Speaker 1: No, we do not do traffic enforcement.
00:20:09
Speaker 2: Okay, no, I guess I get that. But again, it's another tool that wouldn't have existed thirty thirty five years ago. Let's go to the phones. People have been very patient, Dan Haley. We'll see what they have to say, and we are going to go first to Ted in Millis, Massachusetts. Ted, you're first in your first st up. You're are with Dan Haley, chief legal Officer of Flock Safety Cameras.
00:20:33
Speaker 3: Go right ahead, Ted, Hi, Dan, and Dan, thanks for taking my call. I think here here's what I'd like to say. I'm it's gonna make a couple of points and Dan, maybe you can get you know, respond to them however you'd like.
00:20:51
Speaker 4: These.
00:20:51
Speaker 3: Everything you said at at around nine o'clock was great, you know, you know captain criminals. I've seen how it can be used for that.
00:21:00
Speaker 1: I totally get it.
00:21:01
Speaker 3: A lot of people are on board with that. The thing that I think bothers everybody is is that the company has been found to be lying. And I know instantly you want to say, no, that's not true. But just a couple examples, and please feel free respond to this in a second.
00:21:19
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's let's take them one at a time, Ted, Ted, let's take them one at a time so that we maintain a little order and decorum and people can focus on the points you're trying to make.
00:21:28
Speaker 3: Go right ahead, Sure, what about the company was caught falsely claiming endorsements or collaborative working relationships with groups like the a C l U, which it never actually partnered with.
00:21:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I assume you mean the recent post by the a C l U that said that we have claims that we were endorsed by the ALU and we haven't. And that's, first of all, it's not what we said. We said we routinely work with state level ACLU attorneys on legislative efforts. And that is absolutely true. The ACU is a very large organization. There's the federal organization and then there are state organizations, in some cases local, and we do routinely work with and sit with in legislative offices with ACLU staff, and more often than not, Ted, we agree on legislative proposed legislative provisions to regulate the use of this technology. We are supportive of regulation of this technology. Just this year, more than well maybe not more than ten, I believe exactly ten states enacted laws that regulate this technology in various ways, and we were very active in the efforts to shape those laws, as was on a state level the ACLU. So that that is not that is not an untruth. That is a that is a truth.
00:23:01
Speaker 2: Thank you, by the way, I think that's a great clarification. And I understand you know, Ted, when you talk, you've heard the old story that if you're at a party and there's fifty people there, ten people get together and someone has a joke and they tell the person next to them, then the other person tells them, and by time you get to the ten person the joke is totally screwed up. So I think that's a pretty reasonable and rational explanation where I don't know where you read that they claim to have coordinated and maybe that word is appropriate, coordinated in conjunction with the ac OU when a legislature was going to, you know, adopt something, and they both wanted to be have some midpoint. So thank you for accepting for at least listening to Dan Haley's explanation. And I know Dan very well he would he would not mislead you. What's the second pointed to?
00:24:00
Speaker 1: Sure?
00:24:01
Speaker 3: Sure? And and and by the way, this is a hot topic in the town of Millis right now, so I'm I'm dying to ask these the next the next one. And I'm sure you've probably heard of this issue, uh, because Google brought this one up quickly. The in Oshkosh, where the I think the issue was lined supposedly or allegedly lying to city council flock line to city council where they rescinded the flock contract, claiming that the camp because flock is what they said, falsely claimed if camera system did not generate travel heat maps of vehicles. And I know you kind of already addressed that a little earlier. But why they you know, it says that they falsely they claimed that flock lie. What do you say about that?
00:24:49
Speaker 2: Okay, so this is I assume you're talking about Yes.
00:24:55
Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead, Dan, Yes, and Ted. I'll start by saying, my memory this is imperfect. So if I sound like I'm being general, I apologize. But that was a situation where our staff was answering questions live from audience member, citizens and from counselors. They asked the specific question in the context of which our staff interpreted the question is dealing with exactly what I was just talking about tracking of vehicles, real time tracking of vehicles, and said correctly that we do not do that. Now, there is a feature on our website that is called heat map, and so someone saw that and said, oh, look at that. They lied. We then, of course offered to sit down with the city council and clarify what we had been what answer we had intended to give, what we thought we were addressing. They declined that offer and decided to rescind the contract. Our view is that was unfortunate, it was a misunderstanding, But I actually do understand how it happened. Very often these hearings are tensious. There's a lot of people who yell, unfortunately, and there's not always a lot of very clear communications. So this is a misunderstanding. It was not a lie, but I understand you know how that outcome happened. That was unfortunate.
00:26:16
Speaker 2: Ded Are there are there any other examples that you'd like to say? With all due.
00:26:21
Speaker 5: Respect, I think that that Dan has given you has given you one honest responses, and I think the first response probably was more satisfactory to you.
00:26:33
Speaker 2: But are you okay with with what he said? You have a follow up question?
00:26:37
Speaker 3: Yeah, I look, I think there. I think the responses from Dan are very fair, and I certainly don't have the ability, you know, right now in the heat of the moment to like research and you know, you know, get the facts right on my side. But the only other thing, and he did mentioned it before that the last thing is was there, truthfully, was there any history of FLOCK sharing their data of citizens with various federal agencies in a way that was not clear to the citizens of the US.
00:27:11
Speaker 1: Yeah, poorly worded there, but yeah, but I understand, I understand what you're getting at set and it's it's an important point. It's a very important point. Flock doesn't share data. Flock enables the sharing of data by our users. So if Millis uses Flock cameras Millis chooses who they share with, they can share with literally every other Flock user in the country. I mean they turn on what's called National look up and that that is what that affects. Or they can share just with Medway, just with Holliston, just with Natick and Framingham. It doesn't it is entirely dependent on Millis. Flock does not make that choice, and Flock has never made that choice. The data is owned by the municipality, controlled by the municipality, and sharing settings are entirely in the control of the admin in the municipality. That's another one of those things that unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation about that on the Internet and it's deliberately circulated to try and dissuade the use of this technology.
00:28:17
Speaker 2: All right, ted, great questions, well.
00:28:20
Speaker 1: Really great questions ed.
00:28:21
Speaker 2: Thank you. I hope that you give uh or your folks in Millie, which is a great community, gives Flock and an opportunity to answer the questions honestly, thanks, Ded, appreciate it.
00:28:32
Speaker 4: Well, thank you both.
00:28:33
Speaker 2: You're welcome. Let me go next to John and Saugus. John in Saugus, you were next on Nice that with Dan Haley, chief Legal Officer of Flock Safety Cameras.
00:28:41
Speaker 6: Go ahad ahead, John, Hey, guys, thank you for taking my call. You know, I when I look at the whole overall pitshup and you know there's a lot of distrust with that government for good reason. You know, one of my first questions would be, does flock have facial recognition capabilities?
00:29:01
Speaker 2: No, we do not.
00:29:04
Speaker 1: That's a that's a that's a very simple one.
00:29:06
Speaker 7: No, okay, that's that makes me feel a little better.
00:29:11
Speaker 6: The other thing is I know that they're they're implementing the drone system and a lot of police departments.
00:29:17
Speaker 1: Now is that pot of flock uh flock we do. We do have drona's first responders, So we do have UH drones and yes that is a separate that is a separate service line. Those are actually extraordinarily powerful tools.
00:29:34
Speaker 3: UH.
00:29:34
Speaker 1: They enable first responders, so not just police but fire EMTs to get eyes on an emergency situation. UH orders of magnitude faster than they otherwise would. So we see situations where, for example, just recently, uh there was a nine to one one call shots fired, a domestic incident. The drone went up, arrived on the scene and is able to see the shooter leaving the house and hiding in the bushes and setting up waiting for the police officers, And so when the officers arrived, they were able to apprehend the suspect without anyone being harmed, whereas had the drone not been there, someone easily could have gotten shot.
00:30:17
Speaker 2: What a great what a great protection for the police officers in that situation. We've seen so many stories where police show up and they're ambushed and in many in several cases police officers killed. That is a brilliant use of a tool. Go right ahead, John, I hope you always excited about that as I am. So yeah.
00:30:39
Speaker 6: So you know, I've been aware of that for a while now, and I totally agree with that. And also you know the ones I'm in Boston. You know they've had the gun ones up for many years, and I agree with that. I just failed that, you know, private businesses for the regular flock, Like I totally agree with the drones. You know, I think everyone will probably feel the same way that we don't want to be, you know, four seven out in public.
00:31:09
Speaker 1: You know, neither do I John John.
00:31:16
Speaker 2: When I was a TV reporter back in the day, we would often go out and you know, if it was a snowstorm or a weather related event or in a beautiful day, would be would say, get us some pictures for the weather guys, uh, for the weather staff of whatever the conditions are. And I would have people come up to me and I'm there with my cameraman or you can't take my picture in public or privacy rights, and I would simply say to him, I'm really sorry to explain to you that we have every right to take your picture. Now, if you want to ask me politely not to take your picture, I don't know. Maybe you're on the FBI's Most Wanted liss. We'll be We'll be happy not to take your picture. Oh And most people will read, no, I'm going into the u FI is no you you want my picture? Okay? I mean.
00:32:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get it, I get it.
00:32:10
Speaker 6: But you know what hats off to the drone, you know, capabilities and everything.
00:32:14
Speaker 7: I'm really you know, that's that's a great thing.
00:32:17
Speaker 2: You know, that's a that's a great suggestion. I was unaware of that. And can you imagine somebody hiding around the back of a building looking to come around and uh and wipe up. You know. It's also what they call suicide by cop. The ida by the idea is that some people are so desperate they want to be killed, but they want to take a couple of cops with them and they don't care if they get killed. And so the police officers with the information, Hey, the guys hiding behind the garage. You know, it gives the police a little bit of an advantage, and they deserve the advantage. John loved your call. Thank you for the example.
00:32:52
Speaker 1: Thank you, guys.
00:32:53
Speaker 2: You soon take a very quick break. My guest is Dan Haley. Dan is the chief legal officer of Flock Safety Cameras. Bring on any questions you want coming back right after this.
00:33:04
Speaker 1: You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
00:33:09
Speaker 2: Okay, we're getting a little tight on time here, so let's move it a little more quickly and we go to Michael in up in Manchester by the Sea. Michael, you're next on Nice Side with Dan Haley, chief Legal officer of flocks safe fluck safety cameras.
00:33:24
Speaker 4: Gentlemen, Thank you, You're welcome, go right ahead, all right, you can hear me? Okay, perfect. So my question really is based on security in current events. We've seen some bad actors and in law enforcement and I want harmercent back to blue. But they have access to a tool that they can use for their own purposes. And then knowing that an administrator is in control of it, what type of certifications does the administrator the administrator go through? And I'm sure and I'm absolutely positive there's plenty of security measures on your on your side, Dan, but what more can you do to mitigate bad actors from accessing flock? Specifically coming from a world of AI where Hugging Face was recently hacked by a red team, so being a tracktrow of intell I mean, what what what are we doing here?
00:34:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm I'm really glad you asked that question. Let me let me answer it two ways. First of all, with regard to bad actors within a police department, that does happen. Police officers are humans and some of them occasionally abuse their authority. And so we've got three different, three different aspects built into the tool to catch that. First of all, every time the system is used, there has to be a reason code entered and that that corresponds to what's called a diverse code. It's an offense category, so there has to be a crime that's being investigated has to be entered there, and the officer's user name is logged. Second, each use is preserved in an audit log permanently, and that document is a public record. So you literally can't misuse the system without creating evidence of that misuse. It's impossible. And third, we recently rolled out AI assistance so that municipalities like Millis where the last caller was from, or maybe those the first caller Millis can turn on the audit assistance and the AI can continuously scan the audit logs and flag if there's any abnormal use and to say, you might take a look at this, this search pattern is suspicious or abnormal. So that's for internal external. We have enterprise grade, top of the line information security protecting our systems. We require multi factor authentication for every user to log into the system, so it's protected between behind multiple layers. And then I guess I'll circle back that audit log would also show immediately if a bad actor gained access to the system and started conducting searches.
00:36:13
Speaker 2: Pretty comprehensive answer, Michael, I appreciate it very much. I want to get one more call in if I can at least.
00:36:18
Speaker 4: Okay, well, thank you very much.
00:36:21
Speaker 2: Thank you, Michael. Great question, really good.
00:36:23
Speaker 4: Question, quod night.
00:36:26
Speaker 2: Let me go next to Steven in Boston. Steven, you gotta push the time a little bit here because we're getting tight on time. Go ahead, Steven.
00:36:33
Speaker 7: Okay, some quick rapid fire questions. So flock would be considered a business, correct, sure? Okay, So the towns you operate in, do you do you get a business license in each one of those towns and pay revenue as any other business. And my other follow up question, let's take you.
00:36:50
Speaker 2: One at a time. Go ahead, go ahead, Dan, we want to take a related to Steven. Steven. Let's take them one at a time. Okay.
00:36:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're we're a vendor to the municipalities we serve.
00:37:01
Speaker 7: Okay, So you have a business license like a landscaper or myself, who's a contractor. You pull a business we're not doing.
00:37:10
Speaker 1: We we are a vendor to the municipality. We're not we're not an established business in the town.
00:37:17
Speaker 7: But I don't see any electric meters attached, So who pays for the electricity?
00:37:22
Speaker 1: There's solar panels attached to them, so nobody.
00:37:26
Speaker 7: Okay, yeah, so yeah, That's what I was wondering, is, so, do you pay any excise tax for the real estate that these poles take, like the telephone company or the electric company pays a fee for the land that they use for the telephone poles or is that just a whisky.
00:37:42
Speaker 1: Wash depending on the municipality. We follow each municipality's permitting rules, and so if there's a fee associated in any given municipality that varies by by jurisdiction, do you know what.
00:37:58
Speaker 7: The average town would receive bad in the taxes? So do you know how much of how that's based is based on square footage or just per camera?
00:38:06
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's probably important. It's probably important to note that these cameras are leased by the municipalities, so that they're not they're they're not they're they're not our property being installed product.
00:38:20
Speaker 7: So it's just I just didn't understand how that go.
00:38:23
Speaker 2: I mean, if for example, let's assume the town hired a private security company to you know, to to maybe I don't know, uh, save cost of paying pensions to police officers, and they have some uh some some way in which they can use private security road details or whatever. I don't think that business is going to be you don't want to hear the answer, Steve, and so I get it, but I'm gonna give it anyway. I don't think that that town which is which is basically is providing a service to the town, a security additional service to the town. I don't think that they then are paying like a ten percent tax of whatever they get from the town. They negotiate a contract with the town, just like when you, as a homeowner, negotiates a contract with someone to cut your grass or whatever, or to trim your hedges. They're a vendor. They're selling a product. They're selling grass. By selling vendors, they.
00:39:19
Speaker 7: Sell the product. Wouldn't that product only be associated with the public building.
00:39:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, we didn't hang up on them. We don't hang up on people, even people who you know are coming. Thank you for taking the questions. I'm sorry to the callers who we didn't get to, but we'd love to periodically have you back here. Dan, because I think you're a great representative of the company, and I think people need to wake up and smell the roses and realize that this is a service that's only going to keep communities a little safer. I only wish that Tucson, Arizona had flocked cameras in position the night that eighty four year old Nancy got Three was kidnapped.
00:40:01
Speaker 1: Maybe you'll believe me, we got a lot of imbound on that. Dan, thank you so much for having me, and I just end by saying, if flock is controversial in your community, I hope you'll go to flocksafety dot com and learn the facts and reach out to us. We'd be happy to send someone to your city council meeting and answer your questions. We love to get our facts out there.
00:40:24
Speaker 2: Absolutely, Dan Haley, thank you so much. When we get back right after the ten o'clock news. If you think you had a bad day today, your day was a great day compared to Anthony Fauci's day. We'll be back after the ten
