佛罗里达州一个县的官员表示，这些车牌识别摄像头在全部所有者被查明之前就已经不见了。居民们仍对缺乏解释感到不满。
Officials in Florida county say the license plate cameras disappeared before all the owners were revealed. Residents remain upset about the lack of explanation.
佛罗里达州一个县路边无人认领摄像头的谜团仍未解开，如今又出现了一个让居民困惑的新谜团。
The mystery of the unclaimed roadside cameras in one Florida county remains unsolved, and now there’s another one to confound residents.
10月19日，县工作人员着手拆除圣露西县12个地点的自动车牌识别摄像头，官员称这些设备未经许可安装在县属路权范围内。但当工作人员赶到时，摄像头已经不见了。
On Oct. 19, county employees set out to remove automated license plate cameras from 12 locations across St. Lucie County where officials said the devices had been installed without permits on county rights-of-way. But when crews arrived, the cameras were already gone.
这是上月开始的一连串事件的最新转折。当时，位于佛罗里达州东海岸的圣露西县准备拆除由Flock Safety公司生产的自动车牌识别器。
It was the latest twist in a saga that began last month, when St. Lucie County, on Florida’s east coast, prepared to remove automated license plate readers made by Flock Safety.
佛罗里达州有数十个地方政府决定拆除这些摄像头，圣露西县是其中之一。执法机构使用这些摄像头记录过往车辆的车牌，用于开罚单和调查犯罪——这些设备也因警方滥用和数据隐私问题而受到审视。县官员本以为他们共有52台这样的设备，但却发现了十多台他们此前并不知情的摄像头，这让居民感到不安，也引发了关于是谁安装了这些摄像头的疑问。
The county was among dozens of local governments across Florida that decided to remove the cameras, which law enforcement agencies use to record passing vehicles’ license plates to levy fines and investigate crimes — and which have drawn scrutiny over police misuse and data privacy concerns. County officials thought they had 52 of the devices. But they found more than a dozen cameras they hadn’t known about, unnerving residents and raising questions about who had installed them.
9月，县工作人员在这些未经许可的摄像头上张贴了通知，要求责任方在30天内将其拆除。根据工作人员张贴通知的时间不同，截止日期从10月16日到10月20日不等。
In September, county staff posted notices at the unpermitted cameras, giving those responsible 30 days to remove them. The deadlines ranged from Oct. 16 to Oct. 20, depending on when staff posted the notices.
自通知张贴以来，部分所有权问题已得到解答，但并非全部。圣露西县治安官办公室认领了其中三台摄像头。皮尔斯堡市和圣露西港市警方随后确认，县名单上另有五台摄像头属于他们。
Since the notices were posted, some ownership questions have been answered, but not all. The St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office claimed three of the cameras. Police in the cities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie subsequently identified five additional cameras on the county’s list as their own.
然而，尽管警方认领了部分设备，但关于其余设备归谁所有、是谁拆除了它们，以及它们在运行的数月里收集了哪些数据，这些问题仍然存在。吉尔表示，县里不打算调查这些问题。
But while police have claimed some of the devices, questions remain about who owned the others, who removed them, and what data they had collected in the months when they were operating. The county does not plan to investigate those questions, Gill said.
“我们的目标是在30天内将摄像头从路权范围内移除，”吉尔说。“我们实现了这一目标。”
“Our goal was to get the cameras out of the right-of-way within 30 days,” Gill said. “We accomplished that goal.”
“听起来像是你做错了事，不想被抓住，只想把它掩盖起来，”加林多说。
“It sounds like when you do something wrong, and you don’t want to get caught, and you kind of just want to sweep it under the rug,” Galindo said.
针对这一批评，吉尔说：“我们没有资源去调查是谁安装了它们。”吉尔说，随着工作人员确定一些最初被认为位于县路权范围内的摄像头实际上位于市路权范围内，意味着他们无权移除这些摄像头，该县的摄像头数量因此发生了变化。他说，路权界限没有明确标记，且随着时间的推移发生了变化。对许可流程的困惑似乎也是这桩悬案的一个因素。
In response to that criticism, Gill said, “We do not have the resources to investigate who installed them.”Gill said the county’s camera count changed as staff determined that some cameras they initially thought were on county rights-of-way were on city rights-of-way, meaning they had no authority to remove them. Right-of-ways are not clearly marked, and boundaries have changed over time, he said. Confusion over the permitting process seems to have played a part in the mystery.
吉尔说，一名Flock代表告诉县工作人员，执法部门曾建议该公司，一份许可可以覆盖多个摄像头。他说，该县要求单独申请许可，这种明显的沟通不畅可能有助于解释为什么一些摄像头缺乏许可或最初无人认领。
A Flock representative told county staff that law enforcement had advised the company that a single permit could cover multiple cameras, Gill said. The county required individual permits, he said, and the apparent miscommunication could help explain why some cameras lacked permits or initially went unclaimed.
吉尔无法指出是哪个机构提供了该指导，也无法说明受影响的摄像头有多少。“所以这是Flock或执法部门的沟通失误，”吉尔说。
Gill could not identify which agency had provided that guidance or how many cameras were affected. “So that was a miscommunication either by [Flock] or law enforcement,” Gill said.
麦克纳利说，在特定情况下，一份许可可以覆盖多个摄像头，但她没有解释这些情况，也没有说明这些情况是否适用于这些设备。“Flock Safety及其分包商直接与相关许可机关协调摄像头安装事宜，并负责遵守适用的许可要求，”她说。
McNally said a single permit can cover multiple cameras under certain circumstances but did not explain those circumstances or whether they applied to these devices. “Flock Safety and its subcontractors coordinate directly with the appropriate permitting authorities regarding camera installations and are responsible for following the applicable permitting requirements,” she said.
Flock以前也面临过许可方面的质疑。2024年，《福布斯》的一项调查发现，该公司在包括佛罗里达州在内的多个州未经适当许可安装了摄像头。
Flock has faced permitting questions before. In 2024, a Forbes investigation found that the company had installed cameras without proper permits in several states, including Florida.
Flock的一位发言人没有回复关于谁操作和移除了这些摄像头，以及关于许可要求的明显困惑的电子邮件提问。
A spokesperson for Flock did not respond to emailed questions about who operated and removed the cameras or the apparent confusion over permitting requirements.
加林多表示，摄像头的失踪只会引发更多疑问，包括它们所收集的信息。她想知道谁掌握了这些信息，以及他们正拿这些信息做什么。“那些数据可能在任何地方，”她说。
Galindo said the cameras’ disappearance has only raised more questions, including about the information they collected. She wants to know who has it and what they are doing with it. “That data could be anywhere,” she said.