BY KEITH CARTER
Los Alamos
The Los Alamos County Council has voted to approve automated license plate readers and speed cameras and has already allowed and installed Flock camera technology all over the county.
In my view, that decision moves our community one step closer to a society where government surveillance becomes the norm rather than the exception.
Five councilors supported this measure: Randall Ryti, Ryn Herrmann, Melanie Hand, Theresa Cull, and Suzie Havemann. While only David Reagor and Beverly Neal-Clinton voted against it.
I believe they made the wrong decision.
Every one of us wants safe neighborhoods. We want criminals caught and victims protected. Supporting public safety, however, should never require us to surrender the liberties that define a free society.
Automated license plate readers don’t distinguish between criminals and law-abiding citizens. They record everyone who passes. Every trip to work. Every visit to a doctor. Every church service. Every political meeting. Every drive to visit family or friends. Individually, these observations may seem insignificant. Collectively, they can create a detailed record of a person’s movements and daily life. Civil liberties organizations have argued that, without meaningful limits, these systems pose significant privacy risks even while acknowledging that they can assist legitimate criminal investigations.
The Fourth Amendment exists for a reason. Our nation’s founders understood that governments naturally seek greater power and that liberty depends upon citizens demanding limits on that power. While courts have generally held that observing vehicles on public roads does not itself violate the Fourth Amendment, the rapid expansion of automated, searchable surveillance networks has sparked a continuing national debate over whether existing legal doctrines adequately protect privacy in the digital age.
History teaches that surveillance systems rarely become smaller. Once the infrastructure exists, the temptation to expand its use grows. Today’s cameras may be justified as tools against violent crime. Tomorrow they may be used for purposes never envisioned when they were approved. This phenomenon—often called “mission creep”—has become one of the principal concerns raised by privacy advocates and policy researchers.
Even communities that initially embraced this technology have begun to reconsider it. Several jurisdictions have suspended or terminated Flock camera programs following concerns about privacy, data sharing, and oversight. Documented cases involving erroneous license plate matches have also resulted in innocent motorists being stopped or detained, demonstrating that no technology is infallible.
This debate should never be framed as “pro-police” versus “anti-police”. Our officers perform an essential and often dangerous job. They deserve effective investigative tools. But every new power granted to government should be matched with equally strong transparency, independent oversight, strict limits on data retention, and clear accountability.
A free society should never ask its citizens simply to trust that surveillance powers will always be used wisely. Trust is earned through transparency.
If you share these concerns, I encourage you to respectfully contact the council members who supported this measure:
- Randall Ryti — randall.ryti@losalamosnm.gov
- Ryn Herrmann — ryn.herrmann@losalamosnm.gov
- Melanie Hand — melanee.hand@losalamosnm.gov
- Theresa Cull — theresa.cull@losalamosnm.gov
- Suzie Havemann — suzie.havemann@losalamosnm.gov
Tell them that privacy is not an outdated concept. Tell them that constitutional liberties deserve as much protection as public safety. Ask them to support stronger safeguards, greater transparency, and regular public review of these surveillance systems.
And if you conclude that these elected officials no longer represent your values, remember that democracy provides a peaceful remedy. Attend meetings. Speak during public comment. Encourage your neighbors to become informed. Support candidates who share your vision. Above all, vote for the individuals who represent your values and vote those who do not out of office.
Freedom is rarely lost in a single dramatic moment. More often, it is surrendered gradually—one policy, one exception, one new surveillance tool at a time.
The question before Los Alamos is not whether we value public safety.
The question is whether we can protect both our safety and the liberties that make our community worth protecting.
Benjamin Franklin’s warning still echoes across nearly three centuries: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Whether one agrees or disagrees with these cameras, every citizen should ask: Where do we draw the line? Because once liberty is surrendered, history shows it is seldom returned voluntarily.
If you are not aware of the privacy issues, multiple class action lawsuits, civil liberty concerns, and misuse of Flock data by law enforcement officials, Flock’s data loss liability or Flock’s perpetual right to data clause or visit the American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU) here.