Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eureka council tables plan for Flock Safety license-plate readers after privacy and contract concerns
Summary
After an extended presentation and public comment, Eureka City Council voted unanimously to table authorization for Flock Safety automated license-plate readers and directed staff to seek review by oversight bodies and to return with clarifications on contract language, data access, retention and third-party cloud storage.
Eureka—s City Council on Tuesday paused plans to install Flock Safety automated license-plate readers, directing staff to seek additional review and to return with a finalized contract and policy language.
Chief of Police Stevens introduced the proposal as a crime-fighting and deterrent tool that would give investigators faster leads, help recover stolen vehicles and assist in serious investigations. "This technology truly has the capability to be a force multiplier for EPD," Stevens said, describing cases in which similar systems aided local arrests and recoveries.
Jonathan Paz, community-affairs manager for Flock Safety, described the product as a camera and software package that captures license plates and a "vehicular fingerprint," issues real-time alerts for hot-list vehicles and deletes stored data after 30 days. Paz said the company does not collect biometric information or facial-recognition data and that Flock implements audit trails and end-to-end encryption.
During two hours of questions, council members pressed staff and vendor representatives on data ownership, cross-jurisdictional sharing, subpoenas and the use of third-party cloud hosting. Councilmember Castellano asked whether the system would require a secure sign-in for users; Chief Stevens replied that "each individual user... will be given their own specific sign in to the system that will help with the audit of the system." Councilmember Bauer raised whether the data could be subpoenaed from the cloud provider; Flock representatives said the city owns the data and that contractual terms require deletion after 30 days, but acknowledged they would follow up with legal detail.
Residents and privacy advocates urged caution. One public commenter asked council to deny the request, saying the system would increase surveillance and noting the initial two-year cost estimate of roughly $75,000 for installation and year-one support plus ongoing subscription costs.
Citing outstanding questions about contract terms, outside access and how the system would operate across jurisdictions, Councilmember Moulton moved to table the item and to refer the draft policy and contract questions to the citizen oversight on police practices board and the independent police auditor for review, including assessment of ACLU recommendations and possible alternative systems. The council seconded the motion and voted unanimously to table the authorization and direct staff to return with the requested analyses.
The council—s action does not reject the Flock proposal; rather, it postpones approval so the city can obtain contract and policy changes, legal review and community oversight input before any agreement is signed.
