Councilors press BPD and BRIC on license‑plate reader pilot, data sharing and surveillance policies

Boston councilors pressed Boston Police Department and Boston Regional Intelligence Center officials on May 15 about the scope of a 90‑day pilot of Flock license‑plate readers, the city’s required surveillance report and policies governing the sharing of intelligence with federal partners.

Ryan Walsh, a city intelligence official, told the committee the pilot is “a 90‑day pilot right now” and that “access is limited to trained users, who have sort of interest in the area where the cameras are located.” He said the pilot includes a small number of LPR cameras and a few CCTV cameras and that the city will assess results before any broader rollout.

Councilors asked how long footage and plate‑read data are retained, who can query the system, and whether the data are shared with external partners. Director Walsh said the department’s standard operating procedures for requests and for dissemination are maintained and that he would provide the committee with the SOPs the city uses for information requests and sharing.

Superintendent Colon and other police officials addressed questions about digital‑forensics tools. “We do not use that technology without a court order or consent,” Colon said of device extraction tools used in investigations. The department said a small number of trained investigators use tools to extract evidence for homicide, sexual assault and other investigations and that they receive ongoing training.

Councilors raised civil‑liberties concerns after advocacy groups said the department had collected information about protesters. The Commissioner described the practice as monitoring “activity around protests” for public‑safety planning and denied that the department maintains long‑term surveillance of attendees absent evidence of criminal activity. When asked whether the department monitors demonstrations equally regardless of political viewpoint, the Commissioner said, “If they put it out there that they’re coming to our city. Absolutely,” and added that monitoring aims to make sure adequate public‑safety assets are available.

Why this matters: Councilors and civil‑liberties advocates said the combination of new sensor pilots, third‑party analytics and unclear data‑sharing rules can create risks for privacy and for vulnerable communities. Council President Michelle Wu and others requested written MOUs and SOPs describing what BRIC can and cannot share with federal partners, and Director Walsh agreed to provide the documented procedures the office uses for information requests and dissemination.

What’s next: Councilors said they expect the annual surveillance report required by the 2021 surveillance technology ordinance; one councilor noted a May 31 submission deadline. Director Walsh and department staff said they are reviewing their policies as part of a CALEA accreditation process and will return the requested documentation to the committee.

Ending: The hearing included a request for written SOPs and for the surveillance‑technology report. Councilors signaled they will continue oversight as BRIC and the department evaluate pilot projects and accreditation work.