Resident raises cybersecurity, privacy concerns about proposed Flock cameras; commissioners promise review
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
An IT administrator urged Monongalia County commissioners to pause or re-evaluate a proposed Flock AI camera program over cybersecurity and privacy concerns; commissioners asked him to submit his concerns in writing and said county IT will follow up with the vendor.
Justin Musser, an IT administrator at the PRT for West Virginia University, told the Monongalia County Commission on Dec. 3 that he had “major technical security information and cybersecurity concerns” about the sheriff’s office proposal to deploy Flock AI surveillance cameras across the county. Musser said the system does more than read license plates: it captures vehicle attributes such as type, color, make and model, creates searchable vehicle “footprints,” and often shares data across jurisdictions.
Musser warned the commission that Flock retains a portion of images for training its AI models, saying, “Flock themselves also retains 1% of their images for training their AI models.” He also raised a technical vulnerability: the camera hardware uses Android Things 8.1, which he said stopped receiving security updates in 2021 and could leave devices unpatchable if vulnerabilities are discovered.
The concerns drew an immediate response from commissioners, who thanked Musser for bringing technical details to the record and asked him to put his concerns in writing. One commissioner said county IT staff would “interact with Flock’s IT people and make sure” vendor responses are clear, and encouraged Musser to send them his notes. The commissioner added, “What you have raised is very convincing and clear and it’s obviously you have a background to speak to that subject matter.”
Commissioners emphasized they had discussed data-control safeguards with vendors earlier and framed the issue as a balance between privacy and public safety. A commissioner stated the commission had already funded the first of three years of the program but acknowledged that vendor technical responses and data-access procedures still need to be documented.
Musser asked the commission to consider pausing the purchase or commissioning a cybersecurity review of the vendor and system. Commissioners agreed to have county IT engage the vendor and to follow up on the written concerns Musser promised to provide. No formal vote to halt or rescind the procurement was taken at the meeting; the discussion concluded with commissioners saying they would seek more technical information and bring findings back to the commission.
The commission moved on to routine business after public comment and adjourned later in the meeting.