Tompkins County public, legislators press pause on Flock camera renewal amid privacy and immigration concerns

Dozens of residents and several county legislators on Sept. 16 urged the Tompkins County Legislature to suspend action on the county's contractual relationship with Flock Safety, a private provider of license-plate and video surveillance.

Public commenters said the system risks privacy violations and could expose community members — including immigrants — to federal enforcement. Several speakers requested adoption of stronger local guardrails or a pause while the county examines how Flock stores and shares data.

Why it matters: Speakers argued the cameras create centralized searchable data and that outside agencies and companies can access or exploit that data. Several speakers tied the issue to the county’s stated sanctuary policies and to recent national reports of misuse of similar systems.

During public comment, multiple residents described concrete concerns about how Flock has been used elsewhere and what the county's audit and retention practices actually mean. Joshua Ganger (resident) said, “I passed no fewer than 3 cameras on the way here,” and noted public audit logs that list vague search reasons and entries labeled "test." Katie Church (resident, librarian) told legislators, “The Flock network and all of its tentacles into other systems is a threat to us, all of us.” Nicholas Taylor (resident) said some outside agencies have used Flock data without clear warrants and added that “20% of searches in the Flock database did not come with proper warrants or attribution,” citing examples he said are public.

Legislators and staff described next steps. Shauna Black (Member, Tompkins County Legislature) told the body she intended to propose postponing action and announced Flock representatives would be invited to a public safety meeting and to the Oct. 7 legislature meeting to answer questions. The resolution on the meeting agenda that would have authorized continued funding was withdrawn during the meeting so the issue could be discussed further with the company present.

What commenters asked for: Residents urged the legislature to adopt the ACLU model ordinance or similar restrictions on database access, independent auditing of retention and search logs, limits on who may query the system, and explicit prohibitions on sharing data with federal immigration enforcement. Several commenters expressed that policy-only protections were insufficient without enforceable law. Mary Anne Grady Flores (resident) framed the issue as a matter of whether the county will be “complicit” in deportations if it continues to supply data.

County response and process: County and sheriff representatives have previously engaged with Flock about transparency features and audit logs, and county staff confirmed further briefings are planned. Legislators said they want the company and the sheriff to appear publicly to answer questions; Shauna Black said she could not support continuing the Flock cameras in their current structure.

Next steps: Legislators set a plan for further public engagement: Flock will be on the agenda at an upcoming public safety meeting and at the Oct. 7 legislature meeting so the company can respond to questions. The resolution that had been scheduled was withdrawn and will be reintroduced for the public floor with the company present.

Taper: The county did not take formal action to extend or cancel any contract at the Sept. 16 meeting; the matter will return to the legislature with public presentations and additional review.