Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety And Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners raise privacy and auditing concerns about Flock flood-camera trial in Underwood
Summary
Commissioners discussed a 24-month trial grant for Flock flood cameras in Underwood, with public concerns about potential surveillance of political stickers and a request that the sheriff implement robust auditing and limit access to case-based requests.
SKAMANIA COUNTY, Wash. — Commissioners used their reports section on Feb. 4 to review community reaction and law-enforcement updates about a 24-month trial of Flock flood-camera technology in Underwood.
A commissioner who attended a recent Underwood presentation said some attendees used “loaded language” during the session and expressed concerns that the cameras — which the presenter described as not doing continuous video recording — could capture license-plate data and, in some commenters’ minds, read political stickers or bumper stickers and thereby implicate First Amendment concerns. The commissioner said they could not find precedents for such misuse in research done over the weekend, and that the sheriff’s office has argued access to the camera data requires a case number.
The commissioner suggested a ballot question — an advisory vote included on an already scheduled ballot item — as a way to gather broader resident input instead of relying on small-sample polling. The commissioner also said the sheriff (identified in the meeting as Sheriff Shrier) intends a 24-month pilot with auditing and that the sheriff committed to audits every 90 days rather than annual reviews.
The commissioner said they had been initially skeptical of the program but, after conversation with the sheriff, were more comfortable with a two-year trial that includes robust auditing and case-number-based access controls. The commissioner noted concerns about potential misuse in other jurisdictions that used similar camera programs as automatic revenue sources, and said the county will watch audit reports and community response during the trial.
Why it matters
The trial affects privacy, law enforcement practices and community trust. Commissioners flagged the need for clear auditing procedures and transparency about when and how camera data can be accessed. The county has not adopted the system permanently; the trial is grant-funded for 24 months and the sheriff indicated the county can stop participation if it does not meet community expectations.
Attribution and next steps
The discussion was part of commissioner reports; no formal board action was taken on the camera trial at the Feb. 4 meeting. Commissioners asked that the sheriff provide regular audit results and that staff consider outreach or a public workshop before placing major surveillance-related items on a consent agenda.
