Residents and council press city to reassess Flock camera use and adopt oversight policy

Public commentators at the Aug. 6 Ithaca Common Council meeting urged the city to pause further use of Flock automated license-plate reader cameras, citing national reporting that law-enforcement access to plate and video data has been shared with federal immigration agents and other agencies.

"The information that is collected by the Flock cameras are is being accessed and used in ways that well‑intentioned communities are not aware of and not in control of," said Katie Church, a resident who spoke during public comment.

Speakers described multiple national examples where local access to Flock or similar systems has been used by federal or out‑of‑jurisdiction agencies and said current contract language and privacy assurances do not prevent those uses. Several called on the Common Council to adopt a community‑oversight ordinance patterned on the ACLU's "Community Control Over Police Surveillance" (COPS) model, which they said would require public review, reporting and constraints on data retention and sharing.

"This legislation was drafted by the ACLU, and it's referred to as COPS," said Aaron Fernando, summarizing the model and urging its adoption locally. He and others argued the measure would not ban surveillance but would establish minimum democratic oversight and auditing standards.

Multiple speakers cited examples and reporting that, they said, show informal or indirect access by federal agents and other agencies to locally collected data; presenters warned this could conflict with Ithaca's sanctuary city commitments. Commenters asked the council to either end the Flock contract or, at minimum, adopt an enforceable surveillance‑data policy that limits sharing and provides public oversight.

Council members responded that they were alarmed by the concerns and asked for more information from the administration. "I would support a speedy change to our policies on Flock, especially if there is substantial evidence to suggest that there are breaches even if we have policies against sharing that information," Alderperson Kiel said during deliberations. Alderperson Kumar echoed the call for reexamination: "We shouldn't pass policies counting on good intentions from all future individuals administering them."

The mayor thanked speakers and said he wanted administration staff to brief the council in a future meeting on safeguards and implications of continued use.

No formal policy change or vote occurred at the Aug. 6 meeting; council members asked for additional briefings and suggested the topic could be the subject of proposed legislation or committee review.