By Hank Russell
The Town of Smithtown said it “will not apologize” for the deployment of its 250-camera surveillance network, saying it is a matter of public safety and preserving the town’s quality of life.
The Institute of Justice (IJ), a public interest law firm based in Arlington, Virginia, said it is warning town residents that their civil liberties and privacy may be in jeopardy because of these cameras and has set up a complaint form on its website urging residents to tell the firm how the use of these cameras resulted in an invasion of their privacy.
As previously reported in Long Island Life & Politics, the Town of Smithtown unveiled its newly renovated Public Safety Command Center back in January. Orchestrated and facilitated by the Department of Public Safety, the town said this modernized center represents a major step forward in the town’s ongoing commitment to safeguarding residents, first responders, and public facilities with cutting-edge tools, real-time communication, and enhanced situational awareness.
At the heart of the upgrade is a powerful network of more than 250 security cameras deployed across Smithtown’s parks, marinas, buildings, and open spaces. This system includes motion tracking, automated alerts in key areas, and License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology, giving public safety personnel and the responders they support critical information the moment it is needed, LILP also reported.
Although the town touted its public safety features, IJ claimed that the surveillance program violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as “fishing expeditions by government officials. But in today’s world, that doesn’t just mean protecting your home. The technology has evolved, and so have government surveillance tactics. Now, your movements across the entire [town] are being monitored without your consent or a warrant.”
IJ noted that it reached out to the town, asking them for documents to explain how they will maintain the surveillance program while protecting the residents’ civil liberties. “Months later, we still have no answer,” said the firm’s managing attorney, William Maurer. “The most likely explanation is that the rules don’t exist, which should worry people as much as the cameras themselves.”
Earlier this year, after the town launched the network, IJ filed a five-page Freedom of Information Law request seeking the town’s use policies, data retention policies, access logs, and data-sharing agreements for the system. In response, the town produced a vague policy manual lacking specific guidelines, some procurement paperwork, and several pages of contract boilerplate, according to the firm.
“The Town has disclosed no concrete data retention policy, no use policy, no access controls, no prohibition on data sharing with outside agencies (including ICE or federal law enforcement), and no public oversight mechanism,” Maurer said. “There was no town board resolution on the record, no public hearing and no vote. The Town announced the system after it was already built. With no specific policies, no public oversight, and no transparency, Smithtown’s surveillance system appears wide open to abuse.”
According to IJ, more than 1,400 local governments nationwide terminated their automated license plate reader (ALPR) contracts since the beginning of of last year. They cited more than 100 incidents of ALPR abuse.
“Police have used similar surveillance technologies to stalk ex-girlfriends, track their critics, and erroneously detain innocent people,” Maurer said. “Clear, enforceable rules are the only thing standing between a surveillance database and that kind of abuse. Smithtown hasn’t shown us any. When the government has over 200 cameras watching residents, drivers, and visitors, that is simply not good enough.”
LILP reached out to the town for comment. A spokesperson said that these cameras are being used responsibly and are not infringing on people’s civil liberties. “Security cameras are a widely accepted and practical tool for protecting people and property,” the spokesperson said. “The Town uses this technology to enhance public safety, protect taxpayer-funded resources and provide critical information when a crime, emergency or potentially life-threatening situation occurs.”
“Smithtown has an obligation to its taxpayers to protect the people who live here, safeguard the public assets they pay for and preserve the high quality of life our residents expect,” the spokesperson said. “We take that responsibility seriously. Public safety and civil liberties are not competing priorities. A secure, responsibly managed camera system allows the Town to protect both. We will not apologize for using lawful, modern technology to help prevent crime, protect taxpayers and, when circumstances demand it, help save lives.”