CONNECTICUT — On Thursday the Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) Council presented Governor Ned Lamont with a comprehensive 59‑page recommendation on how the Commonwealth should regulate emerging surveillance technology. The report, authored by council chair Chief Keith Mello of Milford, focuses on Flock Safety license‑plate‑reading cameras, fixed‑camera networks and police‑operated drones.
Key recommendations
The council urges the state to limit the retention of data captured by license‑plate readers and similar systems to seven days, tightening the 21‑day limit already set by the new digital‑privacy law that takes effect on Oct. 1. It also calls for stronger oversight, including two‑step logins for authorized users, detailed logs of every data‑access request, regular audits, and clear standards for how many cameras may be installed and why particular locations are chosen.
“Connecticut police departments use these systems to find missing and endangered people, identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects and build evidence in homicides, sexual assaults, robberies and other violent crimes,” Chief Mello said. “The report does not question the technology’s usefulness; it asks whether the safeguards are strong enough to justify the cost to personal privacy.”
Legislative context
The recommendations arrive just weeks before the first wave of the state’s new digital‑privacy law goes into effect. Sen. James Maroney, D‑Milford, who helped craft the legislation, praised the council’s work as a “thorough” starting point for further regulation. He noted that Connecticut is “mostly ahead of the curve in terms of legislation and behind the curve in terms of technology.”
Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff and Governor Lamont were briefed on the report before the council meeting. Lamont thanked Chief Mello and the POST team, saying the governor asked for the study after hearing concerns from residents across the state about privacy.
Local concerns and security questions
Community activist Eric Weiner, who raised early objections to Flock cameras in Windsor, expressed skepticism that any regulatory framework could fully protect data stored in the cloud. He cited a recent hack of FBI personnel records on the same platform used by Flock, asking, “If the FBI can’t keep their stuff secure, how can a small town like Windsor?”
The council’s report acknowledges that while automated traffic‑enforcement cameras are already tightly regulated, drones and fixed‑video networks lack any statutory framework. “In principle, an agency could expand a camera network without limit and keep the footage indefinitely,” Mello warned.
Scope of current deployment
According to a POST survey, roughly three‑quarters of Connecticut police departments employ fixed license‑plate‑reading cameras, with a total of 1,564 units statewide. Five municipalities operate 51 or more cameras. Chief Paul Melanson of Farmington explained that a surge in theft of cars and catalytic converters years ago spurred rapid adoption of the technology, but public sentiment has shifted as awareness of AI‑driven data collection grows.
“There’s a little bit of a pendulum here,” Melanson said. “With proper use and factual information, I think this will move forward in a reasonable way.”
Next steps
The council’s recommendations are advisory and do not override existing state law, but they are expected to shape legislation drafted after the General Assembly reconvenes in January. If adopted, the measures would provide Connecticut residents with clearer privacy protections while preserving the tools police use to solve serious crimes.
Original reporting: The Connecticut Mirror — read the source article.
