Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the License Plate Readers Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ithaca police defend use of Flock plate readers, agree to revisit data-sharing and transparency questions
Summary
Officials said automated license-plate readers are used primarily as investigative tools and are logged in a transparency portal; board members raised concerns about statewide sharing, retention and third-party access and asked staff to recirculate policies and Q&A and to invite vendor and analyst briefings at a future meeting.
Chief (Ithaca Police Department) defended the department’s use of automated license-plate readers provided by Flock Safety and said the devices are used “as an investigative tool.” He said the system recently aided recovery of a vehicle stolen in Rochester after the plate reader registered the vehicle and officers assigned an incident number.
Board members pressed on who the department shares plate-reader data with, how access is logged and how long data are retained on the department’s transparency portal. One board member asked whether sharing extended to “all jurisdictions within New York State” and the chief replied that some sharing arrangements come through agreements with Flock and that New York State guidance from the attorney general had influenced interagency cooperation.
The chief acknowledged community concern about possible wider access to location and plate data and urged a risk-versus-reward analysis. “We use it as an investigative tool,” he said, adding that Flock originally developed the system to address car larcenies and to reduce unnecessary investigative stops.
Board members noted instances where case numbers or incident identifiers appeared in portal columns meant for reasons and that some entries were not explanatory. The chief said the transparency portal shows reasons for access, that the portal’s 30-day retention on some public-facing fields is automated, and that the department will recirculate its written policy and the prior Q&A responses the board had submitted a year earlier.
Several board members suggested a follow-up meeting with Flock and asked the department to identify which outside agencies currently have access through Flock agreements and whether any partners had a history of broader data-sharing; the chief said staff could review the list of participating agencies and “dig in” where concerns arise. The chief cautioned that restricting partners could risk losing access to the vendor service and that some agencies have already lost privileges when vendors limited sharing with federal partners.
No formal change in retention policy or data-access agreements was made at the meeting. The board and chief agreed to continue the topic at a future meeting, circulate the department’s retention policy and the prior Q&A, and invite vendor or analyst briefings to answer outstanding questions.
Ending: The discussion closed with agreement to continue work on transparency and to bring more detailed materials and outside speakers for a follow-up session; the transcript records no formal policy action or vote.
