Residents urge council to restrict city use of surveillance analytics and camera networks

During public comment at the Jan. 15 Ridgecrest City Council meeting several residents urged the council to reconsider the city’s use of surveillance analytics and automated tracking technologies.

What speakers said: Mike Veil, a Ridgecrest resident, told the council he opposed the city’s use of PlaceAI (referred to in the meeting as "placer AI") and the Flock license‑plate‑style camera network, saying both collect metadata and create persistent tracking records of people who spend time in public. "Track that data far enough and you know exactly who you're looking at," Veil said, arguing the systems can turn aggregated signals into identifiable profiles and ultimately erode privacy.

Joe Shermer, a retired law‑enforcement officer who spoke later, said his understanding was the camera system is only activated for incidents but warned that incident records can cascade into multiple incident numbers and extend recordings indefinitely. Another caller, Ronald Porter, asked for clearer Brown Act agenda descriptions for closed session items and repeated concerns about always‑on recording, saying, "Once it's on the server, it stays there."

Calls for action: Speakers urged local limits and broader policy change. One resident advised constituents to contact state and federal legislators to pursue digital‑privacy legislation; others asked the city to put a local stop to purchases or use of analytics and to clarify retention and access policies for existing camera footage.

City response: Council members and staff acknowledged the concerns. One councilmember said an in‑town stop to purchases or funding was possible and could be combined with work at the state or federal level; the city manager did not announce a policy change during the meeting but said staff would follow up on individual requests and complaints raised by speakers.

What was not decided: The council did not take formal action on surveillance technology at this meeting. No ordinance, policy or directive restricting or expanding the city’s use of analytics was put before council; speakers urged further study and potential policy action.

What to watch for: Residents requested clearer public disclosure about what systems capture, who can access the data, retention schedules and whether vendor redaction or deletion procedures are auditable. Council staff acknowledged follow‑up would be needed to answer specific questions about data retention and operational access.