Pappert: Americans Shouldn’t Trade Constitutional Rights for ‘Safety,’ the ‘Compromise’ Flock CEO Wants

Kaitlin Housler
Tom Pappert

Tom Pappert, lead reporter at The Tennessee Star, pushed back on Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley’s argument that Americans must balance privacy with public safety, arguing that they should not have to sacrifice their constitutional rights in the name of safety.

Pappert’s comments came during an appearance Monday on The Michael Patrick Leahy Show in reaction to a clip of Langley discussing on Fox News the tension between privacy and public safety.

Langley said, “I value my privacy. My family values their privacy. My employees value their privacy. But what we’re talking about is safety as well.”

“And so I think when people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing,” Langley added. “And what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise. How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”

In response to Landley’s comments, Pappert said, “Benjamin Franklin is rolling in his grave.”

“He who would trade a little bit of liberty for an ounce of safety deserves neither,” Pappert added, paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin’s famous 1766 quote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Pappert also questioned whether the public understands the constitutional implications of widespread surveillance technology.

“You wonder when you see some of these young CEOs, these innovators are American schools really that bad, or were you asleep during civics class?” he said.

While criticizing Flock’s public messaging, Pappert acknowledged that the underlying technology could have a legitimate role in policing.

“I think there’s even an argument that the technology they have may have a place in modern policing,” Pappert said. “It may be the only way you can do modern policing.”

However, he argued that Flock’s handling of the controversy has created a public relations problem for law enforcement agencies that use the cameras.

“At this point, I think local police all over the country, and especially in Tennessee, ought to be going to Flock and asking for their money back because they’ve made this into such a public relations disaster,” Pappert said.

The discussion also focused on safeguards after Leahy cited a case involving a police officer who allegedly used Flock technology to track his former girlfriend thousands of times.

Pappert acknowledged that regulations could potentially address such abuses, but questioned whether adequate safeguards are currently in place.

“We’re left to understand that these regulations simply are not in place,” he said.

Pappert said he was watching efforts by Tennessee law enforcement organizations to establish rules governing the technology.

“I’m hoping that there’s an effort in Tennessee right now between the Sheriff’s Association and the Association of Police Chiefs to create regulations for flock cameras,” he said. “And I for one am excited to see if they actually work and if they can ameliorate these concerns.”

With regard to the broader use of artificial intelligence and surveillance, Pappert argued that AI development and surveillance technology should not necessarily be treated as the same issue, saying the U.S. needs to remain competitive in artificial intelligence while addressing concerns surrounding mass surveillance.

“We don’t need that,” Pappert said of what he described as a “panopticon of Flock cameras and AI surveillance.” “What we do need, though, is artificial intelligence, because if we don’t create it and we don’t master it and we don’t become the world leader, then…China will do it, their buddies in Russia will be number two, and the United States will become a backwater.”

Watch:

– – –

Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network.

 

 

Related posts

Comments