License plate reader cameras in Brookline? Readers say it’s a bad idea.

Readers Say

Chestnut Hill Realty had planned to install the cameras to deter theft, but a local Select Board quickly shuttered the proposal.

Share

Send this article to your social connections.

A proposal to install electronic license plate readers at Chestnut Hill Realty properties has divided readers — and sparked a heated debate over privacy, safety, and surveillance.

Of the 298 readers who responded to our survey, 66% said they oppose the plan, citing privacy concerns and questioning whether the cameras would prevent crime. On the flip side, 32% supported the move, arguing it could deter theft and help police solve cases.

“Serious, intrusive violation of privacy. Tracking of my movements is illegal surveillance,” said Sue-Ellen H. of Watertown.

Selkie from Littleton agreed, arguing that “small-time theft does not require surveillance state tactics. Hire some security guards!” 

Supporters, however, said the technology could protect residents and businesses.

“If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,” said Tom of Quincy.

The debate began after Chestnut Hill Realty said it was installing a Flock Safety license plate reader along Independence Drive, citing a rise in package and retail theft. The company asked if Brookline police would be interested in accessing the data.

The civil liberties group ACLU of Massachusetts warned that the cameras, marketed as neighborhood safety tools, enable broad government surveillance by tracking people’s movements.

Flock Safety, however, rejected that characterization.

“The agencies that use our technologies own and control all data collected through their Flock hardware, period, full stop,” Dan Haley, chief legal officer at Flock Safety, told Boston.com in a written statement. “Neither Flock nor anyone else is ‘collecting data on everyone’s movements,’ as the ACLU alleges.”

Amid the outcry, the Brookline Select Board on Oct. 28 voted to pause an agreement that would have allowed police to access the data, saying it would revisit the proposal at a later date.

Below, readers share why they do and don’t support installing license plate-scanning cameras to deter theft.

Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.

Chestnut Hill Realty considered adding license plate reader cameras to deter theft. Is it a good idea?

No, it raises privacy concerns

“Let’s focus on reducing theft and crime by alleviating poverty, sky-high housing costs, and barriers to employment — not by giving away our right to privacy.” – P. M., Boston

“First, it doesn’t deter theft; it just makes it easier to investigate. When theft becomes an issue, the economy is going bad. And there is no legitimate reason for the government to know where I am if I am just out doing errands.” – Michael, Quincy (formerly of Brookline)

“We already have local policing for theft, and there is too much leeway for all the data collected by Flock to be spread, hacked, or misused. My whereabouts are none of Flock’s, or Chestnut Hill Realty’s, business.” – Sylvia M., Newton

“To give a private corporation the ability to police public roads and spaces can lead to serious misuse of the personal data it collects. We have a police force to do that. How the company really thinks this will allow them to catch shop-lifters is beyond me!” – Anabel G., Lexington

“I’m not sure it’s necessary to have everyone coming and going recorded to catch a few causing issues. Many people already have door cameras and likely have the package stealers on camera anyway. I can see the potential for abuse.” – Renee, Ashland

“It’s a horrible violation of privacy and will be blatantly abused by police, corporations, and anyone else that can access this data. We need regulation to prevent this.” – Kal, Boston

Yes, it could help reduce crime

“If cities/towns are not going to use police enforcement anymore we need to find another way to deter those who might commit a crime (or run a red light, for that matter!)” – Sara C., Cambridge

“Nothing is being done to deter crime. If people think they have privacy out in public they are sadly mistaken. Most countries have cameras in public. However, being owned and run by the realty company? Sketchy!” – Sue C., Jamaica Plain

“Theft is out of control. If there were consequences for crime, maybe it would decrease? I invite them to track my lawful activity.” – John, Taunton

“If you’re not doing anything wrong, you should not object to being tracked or recorded 24/7.” – Michael J., Charlestown

“With the rise of DIY security cameras and dash cams, we are being monitored more than ever. For law-abiding citizens I welcome the extra security to protect me from people that break laws and can be held accountable. If people know they are being monitored or watched, they are less likely to break laws while the rest of us have nothing to worry about.” – James, Quincy

Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.