The citizens who came out last Wednesday night against the installation of a Flock camera near the Mt. Hope Bridge are right to take a skeptical view of the need for additional surveillance. We live in a world where social media algorithms know what we want before we do; ring cameras reveal our location as we walk down the street. GPS and EZ-pass records can track our route to the airport, where we scan our biometric passports and take photos for facial recognition.

At a time where certain federal agencies are coming under increased scrutiny for overstepping their mandates, real concerns exist that data could be used to track immigrants as well as protesters and individuals exercising their First Amendment rights.

No wonder so many of us are apprehensive about the creation of a nationwide, interconnected surveillance network.

Yet, after reading the research and testimony in their meeting packets, 4 out of 5 Town Councilors approved the camera.

The determining factor? Public safety.

Representatives from the Providence and Cranston police departments, robust adopters of Flock; Captain Marc Alboum of RISP, who is tasked with implementing this plan; and Chief Kevin Lynch and Captain Steven St. Pierre all made compelling arguments in favor of the technology.

These 5 officers recounted dozens of crimes stopped or solved by Flock, most dramatically just a few hours prior when cameras assisted in locating a distressed individual shortly before they reached the Pell Bridge, averting a suicide attempt.

Flock captures plate numbers, color, make and model of cars — not faces, speed, or red-light violations. The plate numbers go into a database and law enforcement can input plates of suspect vehicles; a match reveals the vehicle’s location at a point in time. Flock cameras operate in 5,000 communities in 49 states, capturing more than 20 billion scans per month. Relative to those numbers, the cases of misuse are exceedingly rare.

Police consider Flock a “game-changing” tool in their arsenal, not a means for indiscriminate mass surveillance.

Most R.I. communities agree. Of the 23 towns statewide RISP identified as locations for new Flock cameras, 20 gave consent. Portsmouth and Warren denied the request, while Tiverton’s decision is pending.

The Council and the Chief spent some time discussing the various guardrails that should be put in place, with Lynch asserting his department will maintain control of data access and conduct routine audits. A Memorandum of Understanding between RISP and Bristol was agreed upon as a further safeguard.

In governance, as in business, success is best achieved when leaders build a strong team and give them the tools they need to do their job. Not to a fault, and not without oversight — but given technology that could respond in real time to Amber and Silver alerts and suicide prevention efforts, the Council has as much a duty to public safety as it does to the oversight of town departments.

Citing ICE, authoritarianism, and the erosion of privacy, citizens’ concerns are very valid — but so is the concern of saying no to technology with a proven track record of saving lives and stopping crime in progress.

This isn’t a lifelong commitment — if at any time the Council is dissatisfied with the results of an audit, they can order the camera removed. Asked what he would do if Bristol decided Flock wasn’t adding value to law enforcement efforts, Alboum replied, “I would remove the camera.”

The Council was right to give the BPD the tools they need to do their job to the best of their abilities, until they are given cause to revoke them.