IIRC, it's https://www.wired.com/story/flock-safety-license-plate-readers-crime/ https://www.wired.com/story/flock-safety-license-plate-reade... and friends.

IIRC, it's https://www.wired.com/story/flock-safety-license-plate-readers-crime/ https://www.wired.com/story/flock-safety-license-plate-reade... and friends. Oh, actually, the 70% was in Marino, CA, and 40% was in Dayton, OH. This is a different one. I've heard about it because Flock has lots of folks in Atlanta. I have no tie to them or view (though there were flock cameras in my part of the neighborhood and we chose not to renew) I believe there is even an official report/study pdf somewhere, but i can't find it at the moment. I remember it coming up in various council/civic meetings. They definitely have run partnerships/studies with police departments and the statistics are not completely obvious nonsense. But at the same time, proving anything like the quoted statement in a methodologically sound way is obviously remarkably difficult, and i have doubts it was done to that degree. I know at least one place did a randomized, controlled trial, but it was of cameras attached to police cars as well as fixed cameras: https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/March%202018%20RIB.pdf https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/March%20... NIJ did a study a decade ago and found nothing for mobile ALPR: https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/license-plate-reader-lpr-police-patrols-crime-hot-spots-experimental https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/license-plate-reade...