Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to halt or limit Flock Safety camera use over privacy, policy and cost concerns
Summary
Council read a written public comment from Raintree Woods resident Arnaldo Medina arguing the city installed preliminary Flock Security cameras without adequate public input and demanding answers on cost, retention, opt-out and oversight.
The council received a written public comment July 17 from Raintree Woods resident Arnoldo (Arnaldo) Medina expressing concern about the preliminary installation of Flock Safety cameras at city entrances and near gated neighborhoods.
Medina said the system appears to be collecting data during validation and commissioning and asked the council and staff to provide objective information justifying the expense, maintenance, training and privacy impacts. He noted that Flock's marketing materials state footage is "automatically deleted after 30 days," but asked whether the city intends to follow that same retention period or permit downloads and local archiving by the city. He asked whether the system will filter only cars or also detect golf carts, bicycles and pedestrians and referenced Flock's vehicle-type filtering capability and the company's "safe list" feature that allows residents to self-register plates so footage of those vehicles is marked as resident and excluded from some search results.
Medina asked whether residents could opt out prior to activation and whether the city would provide homeowners associations the option to offer a Flock Safety safe list for HOA members. He also asked the city to create a citizen oversight board to establish policy parameters and to publish cost and justification for the program. The letter concluded by urging the council to adopt privacy-focused rules or to reconsider the program altogether.
Why it matters: Medina framed the concern as trade-offs between public-safety benefits and privacy and fiscal cost, and requested city-specific documentation on hardware and recurring costs, retention and access policies, and any resident opt-out provisions.
Council action: The letter was read into the record during the Citizens to be Heard portion of the meeting. No council action or directive on the program was recorded in the meeting minutes; staff or council did not adopt a new policy at this session.
Ending: Staff may be expected to respond to the written comment and to provide the documentation Medina requested; the letter asked for a substantive response and requested policy work or reconsideration of the cameras.
