Residents and sheriff spar over Flock camera privacy as county drafts usage policy

A member of the public told the Tompkins County Public Safety Committee on July 22 she is concerned that Flock license‑plate and surveillance systems are being used beyond public‑safety purposes and urged the county to “pause” usage pending review. The sheriff responded with operational details and said the county is drafting a use policy.

“Eliza Salomon, a resident of the city of Ithaca, told the committee she has seen Flock cameras near her neighborhood and said national reporting shows the company’s data has been used for immigration enforcement and other controversial purposes. She quoted an American Civil Liberties Union technology director, saying ‘Flock is trying to build a nationwide authoritarian surveillance system,’” the committee record shows. Salomon urged “a thorough investigation, and pause in use of the cameras” until safeguards are clear.

The sheriff told the committee the devices on county property are managed with several limits and that the underlying image data is owned by the county, not Flock. “The data that is captured by these devices is ours. It isn't owned by Flock,” the sheriff said, and added that searches from outside New York State are currently blocked: “Right now, our devices are only searchable and usable by law enforcement in New York state.”

The sheriff described immediate policy changes under way: mandatory search fields requiring a local case number and a search reason, tighter search parameter definitions to avoid overly broad queries, a retention period currently set at 30 days (with the sheriff open to discussion about lowering it), and a planned public transparency hub on the sheriff’s website listing numbers and uses. He also said the vendor had told county staff it does not provide backdoor access to outside agencies and that immigration was not a search parameter in the sheriff’s system.

Sheriff and committee members acknowledged the tradeoffs: limiting out‑of‑state searches can hamper cross‑jurisdictional investigations such as certain missing‑person cases, while broad access raises privacy concerns. The sheriff said he will circulate the draft policy to the committee for further input when it is complete.