Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Hays County to cancel Flock ALPR contract; supporters cite public-safety successes
Summary
Numerous public commenters urged the Commissioners Court to cancel or reject expansion of the county's contract with Flock, an automated license-plate reader vendor, citing privacy, data-security and equity concerns. Supporters of the contract spoke in favor of the tool as an investigative aid.
Scores of residents urged the Hays County Commissioners Court to cancel or oppose expansion of the county’s contract with Flock, a private vendor of automated license-plate recognition (ALPR) cameras, in public comments at the court meeting.
Nut graf: Opposition focused on privacy, alleged company misconduct, and the risk of disproportionate impacts on immigrants and low-income communities, while supporters said the cameras are one investigative tool among many that have aided serious criminal investigations.
Speakers who identified themselves as local residents and civil-rights advocates urged the court to cancel Hays County’s contract and to refuse any expansion planned for September. Eric Martinez told the court: “These cameras don’t prevent crime. Instead, they track everyone all the time, flipping the presumption of innocence on its head.” He cited press reports and congressional inquiries alleging improper conduct by Flock and said the company “has admitted to buying stolen data to fuel its surveillance empire.”
Miles Martin, who identified himself as social media coordinator for Mono Amiga Action, urged a public-health and prevention approach rather than mass surveillance, saying the technology “at best reacts after the fact and often in ways that come with the cost of privacy, civil liberties, and trust.” Other written comments in the record echoed those concerns and urged the court to vote against expansion at the Sept. 2 meeting.
Still, several commenters supported continued use of ALPR cameras. Sam Young, who said he attended the sheriff’s public meeting, argued the cameras contributed to the quick apprehension of a murder suspect and said they would be deployed in identified high-crime areas.
Court response: Commissioners said they had heard the community’s concerns. Judge Becerra noted that he previously supported a Flock expansion in February but had changed his position after further community feedback and additional federal developments. “The community didn’t like it…so I’m not going to support this Flock expansion,” the judge said during the meeting.
Ending: The matter was on the court’s upcoming agenda for a vote scheduled on Sept. 2; commenters and commissioners indicated the court would revisit the contract in light of public concerns before expanding surveillance coverage.
