Sioux Falls’ Flock debate gets a dose of ‘dark surveillance state’ pushback

Sioux Falls Mayor Christine Erickson addressed the city’s use of ALPRs Tuesday during a press conference with Police Chief Jon Thum at her side. (Joe Sneve / The Dakota Scout)

Mayor Christine Erickson will enshrine rules around automated license plate readers in an executive order.

But the public outcry spurring City Hall to bolster civil rights protections around police surveillance in South Dakota’s largest city could be the product of fake news and online misinformation, according to Sioux Falls-area law enforcement officials.

“This isn't some dark surveillance state,” Minnehaha County Sheriff Milstead said during a morning press conference Tuesday at Sioux Falls City Hall, where he joined top brass from the city’s police department and the Minnehaha County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Police union calls for accountability as Sioux Falls budgets for Flock cameras

Labor organization representing law enforcement officers says state needs statutes with ‘real consequences’ for abusing use of ALPRs

Subscribe to The Dakota Scout to read the rest of the story.

Become a paying subscriber of The Dakota Scout to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.

A subscription gets you:

Daily news in your inbox
Viewpoints, concert reviews, obituaries
Weekly digital copy of print version

Reply

or to participate

Ralph1 month ago(edited)

This paper has really gone downhill with its criticism of data center opponents. There's no balance at all with only pro data center quotes reported and opposition being described as Chinese govt encouraged.

Les Wolff1 month ago

They flagged and ticketed grandma Wolff 135$ for driving to the courthouse to buy her tags as I was following her a few miles back. Then turned on a denial of service on cell phones so I couldn’t ask her why the stop. When asked about the denial of service on cell phones, patrolman number 1 in Pierre denied and told me there was no service in that area of my home service where we commonly use it. Perkins County has also used it to harass us. Then there is an also the county Sheriffs open door to our cell phones through Homeland Security. Why no talk of that illegal intrusion?

Dakota S.1 month ago

"A Washington Post investigation last month found at least 69 police officials accused, charged or convicted of misusing Flock or similar systems."

Dear Google, how many police officials are there in the United States?

"There are more than 750,000 sworn full-time law enforcement officers serving in the United States."

Less than 0.01% found to be misusing the system. "!" The fearmongering going on here is INSANE yet the sheeple obligingly lap it up. smh

Robert Drake1 month ago

Yes, there is fear mongering, do you see how many people drive around with Gadsden flags on their vehicles or flying in their yards. That doesn't make government mass surveillance a good thing that we shouldn't question.

If you're all about trusting government/law enforcement and just complying, good for you, but most "sheeple" around here don't welcome government watching their every move.

Les Wolff1 month ago

No, Google does not always tell the truth. [1] (https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/4128609/why-does-google-constantly-lie-to-me-on-search-results-i-ask-it-and-it-gives-unrelated-results?hl=en)Google is not an all-knowing truth-teller; it is a tool that indexes, ranks, and summarizes web pages written by humans (or generated by AI
To even begin to think, only .01% out of 750,000 officers are misusing data could be true, is factual BS.

The Heart of Everything1 month ago

"Milstead and Police Chief Jon Thum spent nearly an hour defending the use of ALPRs, walking reporters through the internal policies governing how Sioux Falls police officers and sheriff’s deputies can access and use the technology. At both agencies, officers need supervisor approval before searching the system.” Every misuse of ALPR data has been at the hands of law enforcement—every policy to prevent misuse is internal. The fox is guarding the hen house—the fact that the chief says it hasn’t happened in Sioux Falls, doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Unless I’m mistaken, the data is held by Flock, so the SF Police delete the information after 30 days, but does it disappear? Which begs the question, if it’s so harmless, why delete the information at all. Why not just keep it forever, after all, crimes that might benefit from this “tool” don’t just happen in a 30 day window. And give me a break, it’s a Chinese conspiracy? And you believe what you see on X? Don’t be stupid.

Angel Jarzebczyk1 month ago(edited)

The fact that the company keeps the rights to and stores the data long after local law enforecement might delete the files is of great concern to me. Who might eventually access that data and what might they do with it? I have a reasonable amount of trust in our local law enforcement to handle the data with care and deal with any misuse fairly. Though we should have plenty of transparency to make sure that happens. What I want to know is who is going to supervise Flock?

Steven Selgestad1 month ago

The constitutional rights of the citizen should be always considered regardless of the type of state. It is a basic right. Our framers understood how easily rights can be lost. There are times when the benefits outweigh the downside but we should always have a say.

Ralph1 month ago

According to the Dakota Scout and our own police chief, you're only saying this because China told you to.