Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I did hear in our KOA news broadcast yesterday, and
then I read a little bit online at the Denver
Gazette and Axios and a couple other places about a
decision to be made by the Denver City Council about
whether to keep using a license plate reading system and
an associated database by a company called flock Flock. And
(00:25):
I actually, I actually thought I heard that they said
we're not going to use it anymore, and maybe I
heard it wrong. And then I read and here's the
headline from the Denver Gazette, Denver mayor extends flock camera
contract against council's wishes. So to me, I am not
capable of understanding the intricacies here, and if I were
to try to explain it to you, I would get
(00:47):
way too many things wrong. And therefore joining us to
make sure that not just you, but also I understand
not just what's really happening, but also what really happened
to get to where we are now. Is Denver City
Councilman Kevin Flynn, former reporter with the Rocky Mountain News.
I remember him from those days. Hi Kevin, thanks for
(01:07):
joining me again on the show.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Hi Ross, I think that's the longest introduction I've ever had.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
You're welcome. You're welcome. So okay, let's do this in
a strange order. But first, just give me the headline.
What is exactly the current decision.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
The current decision was by the mayor to extend the
contract with flock, a no cost contract for five months.
We are piloting a Denver only platform that the company
put together that has aimed at addressing all of the
concerns and issues that members in the public have brought
(01:50):
up about the use of this system, whether they're realistic
or not, except for one, and that is basically the
overarching question of should this data be gathered at all?
There's no way to reconcile using the system if there's
an agreement that we shouldn't be gathering the data at all.
(02:13):
I'm not in that camp because license plates are plane
view and courts have ruled pretty consistently that police in
the public, if they can see your license plate, they
can make note of it. This is simply a system
that makes note of it about two million times a
month based on our locations, and holds that for thirty days.
(02:36):
But here's the bottom line for me, ross am I
under surveillance. If no one's looking at me, the fact
that my license plate may be in this database for
thirty days after I pass one of their readers is
meaningless until my license plate is looked at. Otherwise it's
(02:58):
a passive system. And so unless my car was stolen,
or it's my license plate stolen, or it's used in
a robbery, or I turn up missing, no one's looking
at it, which looked at, for instance, quite recently a
homicide case where the license plate readers system was able
(03:19):
to identify the vehicle that was used in that and
otherwise there would not have been that feet. So it's
been very, very useful, not just in stolen car cases.
That was the primary reason that we used it in
the first place, since I think it was March of
twenty twenty four, was to reduce our stolen our auto thefts,
(03:43):
which we have. We were leading the nation in auto thefts.
But this has been very useful in resolving missing person cases,
amber alerts, homicides, aggravated assaults, and cases like that. So
a lot of the concerns were over misuse and abuse.
(04:04):
So the mayor extended it to March thirty first with
this new platform where it's restricted only to Denver, and
so no outside law enforcement agencies can look at it.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Okay, so let me just jump let me just jump
in for a second, just so I can get into
a few questions. We got about five minutes here, so
I fully get your point about the passivity of it
and that it's information just sitting in a database. And
just so we're clear, Kevin, I really don't have a
strong opinion on this. I'm not arguing in favor of
it against it. I just want to understand what's going on.
I can understand the concerns of some saying, Okay, it's
(04:43):
sitting in a database, but how do we make sure
that the only people looking at the database are the
people that we think should be looking at the database?
And I assume that that's a big part of the
conversation with this task force that you were part of.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yes, yes, and still still am. The task force hasn't
finished its work. I think the reason the mayor did
what he did yesterday is that the current contract was expiring.
I think it was due to inspire yesterday, and so
in order to keep the cameras operating while the task
force is still doing its work, I think this was
(05:17):
the move that he decided he have to make, and
I support that it may lead to a new contract consideration.
At the end of March. We will see this current contract.
We will see how the platform is used and how
we limit access to only the users who are authorized
to use it, and how it can't be misused. I
want to satisfy myself with that, but I do want
(05:40):
to clarify something Ross when you introduced the topic. The
city council in May voted down the full contract extension
for two years under the old rules. We voted that
down at the request of the Mayor's office because of
all the controversies surrounding that. The mayor's office asked us
that day to why don't you vote down the contract?
(06:03):
We will form this surveillance task force to come up
with recommendations on how it can be used or whether
it can be used within our within our rules and
within our desires and frankly within our within the way
we want the city to operate. So we haven't reached
(06:23):
that decision yet. So the mayor made it clear in
May that he was going to keep the camera system
operating through the task forces work, and so we've reached
the end of that, they worked out. He listened to
the concerns that were being raised, and Flock put together
a Denver only platform, unique to Denver, and we're going
(06:46):
to see how that works, and if it doesn't work
to our satisfaction, then we pulled them out. At March,
we're still going on at the task force. We needed
to keep the cameras going.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Okay, So can you just please clarify what the what
what the public misunderstanding is that you are trying to
make sure people get right.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
Okay, that the unanimous city council vote did not mean
that a unanimous city council that all the city council
members did not want Flock. I was ready to vote yes.
I don't know if it would have passed the seven
votes that day, but the votes were very fluid because
(07:32):
of all the input we were getting. So the Mayor's
office said, let's pull back. So I think what's being
misinterpreted is the city council vote first got it okay,
It was to pull the contract in order to do
this evaluation work and see whether we want to use it.
That work is still ongoing.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
And with the announcement yesterday, with the mayor extending the contract,
and you said it's a no cost contract, so it
is our Are you confident that the mayor has the
authority to do that?
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yes, yeah, I think it's clear that he does. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
And if you were a betting man, do you believe
that a year from now flock cameras will be operating
in Denver?
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I think it's gonna be very difficult. Even if this
news system works. There are a lot of folks who
simply don't believe we should be acquiring the data at all.
I think that would be I think that would be
the wrong decision because, like I said, am I under
surveillance of no one's looking at me, it's playing view?
(08:41):
The plane view doctrine has been upheld in courts. This
is simply a mechanized or an automated way acquiring that data.
But I'll tell you what, the people who then who
have been victimized by crime are glad that we were
able to solid based on using this system.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Denver City Councilman Kevin Flynn, thanks very much for your
time for the clarifications. And uh and I'm sure I've
got lots of listeners in Denver. They'll be thinking a
lot about this as it proceeds.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Thank you taking us, Okay, you too.
I did hear in our KOA news broadcast yesterday, and
then I read a little bit online at the Denver
Gazette and Axios and a couple other places about a
decision to be made by the Denver City Council about
whether to keep using a license plate reading system and
an associated database by a company called flock Flock. And
(00:25):
I actually, I actually thought I heard that they said
we're not going to use it anymore, and maybe I
heard it wrong. And then I read and here's the
headline from the Denver Gazette, Denver mayor extends flock camera
contract against council's wishes. So to me, I am not
capable of understanding the intricacies here, and if I were
to try to explain it to you, I would get
(00:47):
way too many things wrong. And therefore joining us to
make sure that not just you, but also I understand
not just what's really happening, but also what really happened
to get to where we are now. Is Denver City
Councilman Kevin Flynn, former reporter with the Rocky Mountain News.
I remember him from those days. Hi Kevin, thanks for
(01:07):
joining me again on the show.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Hi Ross, I think that's the longest introduction I've ever had.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
You're welcome. You're welcome. So okay, let's do this in
a strange order. But first, just give me the headline.
What is exactly the current decision.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
The current decision was by the mayor to extend the
contract with flock, a no cost contract for five months.
We are piloting a Denver only platform that the company
put together that has aimed at addressing all of the
concerns and issues that members in the public have brought
(01:50):
up about the use of this system, whether they're realistic
or not, except for one, and that is basically the
overarching question of should this data be gathered at all?
There's no way to reconcile using the system if there's
an agreement that we shouldn't be gathering the data at all.
(02:13):
I'm not in that camp because license plates are plane
view and courts have ruled pretty consistently that police in
the public, if they can see your license plate, they
can make note of it. This is simply a system
that makes note of it about two million times a
month based on our locations, and holds that for thirty days.
(02:36):
But here's the bottom line for me, ross am I
under surveillance. If no one's looking at me, the fact
that my license plate may be in this database for
thirty days after I pass one of their readers is
meaningless until my license plate is looked at. Otherwise it's
(02:58):
a passive system. And so unless my car was stolen,
or it's my license plate stolen, or it's used in
a robbery, or I turn up missing, no one's looking
at it, which looked at, for instance, quite recently a
homicide case where the license plate readers system was able
(03:19):
to identify the vehicle that was used in that and
otherwise there would not have been that feet. So it's
been very, very useful, not just in stolen car cases.
That was the primary reason that we used it in
the first place, since I think it was March of
twenty twenty four, was to reduce our stolen our auto thefts,
(03:43):
which we have. We were leading the nation in auto thefts.
But this has been very useful in resolving missing person cases,
amber alerts, homicides, aggravated assaults, and cases like that. So
a lot of the concerns were over misuse and abuse.
(04:04):
So the mayor extended it to March thirty first with
this new platform where it's restricted only to Denver, and
so no outside law enforcement agencies can look at it.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Okay, so let me just jump let me just jump
in for a second, just so I can get into
a few questions. We got about five minutes here, so
I fully get your point about the passivity of it
and that it's information just sitting in a database. And
just so we're clear, Kevin, I really don't have a
strong opinion on this. I'm not arguing in favor of
it against it. I just want to understand what's going on.
I can understand the concerns of some saying, Okay, it's
(04:43):
sitting in a database, but how do we make sure
that the only people looking at the database are the
people that we think should be looking at the database?
And I assume that that's a big part of the
conversation with this task force that you were part of.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yes, yes, and still still am. The task force hasn't
finished its work. I think the reason the mayor did
what he did yesterday is that the current contract was expiring.
I think it was due to inspire yesterday, and so
in order to keep the cameras operating while the task
force is still doing its work, I think this was
(05:17):
the move that he decided he have to make, and
I support that it may lead to a new contract consideration.
At the end of March. We will see this current contract.
We will see how the platform is used and how
we limit access to only the users who are authorized
to use it, and how it can't be misused. I
want to satisfy myself with that, but I do want
(05:40):
to clarify something Ross when you introduced the topic. The
city council in May voted down the full contract extension
for two years under the old rules. We voted that
down at the request of the Mayor's office because of
all the controversies surrounding that. The mayor's office asked us
that day to why don't you vote down the contract?
(06:03):
We will form this surveillance task force to come up
with recommendations on how it can be used or whether
it can be used within our within our rules and
within our desires and frankly within our within the way
we want the city to operate. So we haven't reached
(06:23):
that decision yet. So the mayor made it clear in
May that he was going to keep the camera system
operating through the task forces work, and so we've reached
the end of that, they worked out. He listened to
the concerns that were being raised, and Flock put together
a Denver only platform, unique to Denver, and we're going
(06:46):
to see how that works, and if it doesn't work
to our satisfaction, then we pulled them out. At March,
we're still going on at the task force. We needed
to keep the cameras going.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Okay, So can you just please clarify what the what
what the public misunderstanding is that you are trying to
make sure people get right.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
Okay, that the unanimous city council vote did not mean
that a unanimous city council that all the city council
members did not want Flock. I was ready to vote yes.
I don't know if it would have passed the seven
votes that day, but the votes were very fluid because
(07:32):
of all the input we were getting. So the Mayor's
office said, let's pull back. So I think what's being
misinterpreted is the city council vote first got it okay,
It was to pull the contract in order to do
this evaluation work and see whether we want to use it.
That work is still ongoing.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
And with the announcement yesterday, with the mayor extending the contract,
and you said it's a no cost contract, so it
is our Are you confident that the mayor has the
authority to do that?
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yes, yeah, I think it's clear that he does. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
And if you were a betting man, do you believe
that a year from now flock cameras will be operating
in Denver?
Speaker 2 (08:17):
I think it's gonna be very difficult. Even if this
news system works. There are a lot of folks who
simply don't believe we should be acquiring the data at all.
I think that would be I think that would be
the wrong decision because, like I said, am I under
surveillance of no one's looking at me, it's playing view?
(08:41):
The plane view doctrine has been upheld in courts. This
is simply a mechanized or an automated way acquiring that data.
But I'll tell you what, the people who then who
have been victimized by crime are glad that we were
able to solid based on using this system.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Denver City Councilman Kevin Flynn, thanks very much for your
time for the clarifications. And uh and I'm sure I've
got lots of listeners in Denver. They'll be thinking a
lot about this as it proceeds.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Thank you taking us, Okay, you too.
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.