Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns council about 'Flock' cameras, cybersecurity and revolving‑door concerns
Summary
A public commenter urged Cleveland City Council to pause further surveillance purchases, saying license-plate readers were installed without public notice, raising cybersecurity and revolving-door conflict concerns and criticizing proposed spending on gunshot-detection technology.
A resident told Cleveland City Council on Nov. 24 that the city installed nearly 100 Flock automatic license-plate readers without public conversation and urged the council to halt further surveillance spending until security and oversight questions are answered.
“Terry Wong” (introduced by the presiding officer as from Ward 3) said the first Flock device appeared in August 2022 and "within 2 months, nearly 100 had settled across the city tracking our movements without a single public conversation." Wong warned of cybersecurity defects in some devices — saying they "run outdated firmware, store passwords insecurely, and can be hacked in under a minute" — and said those vulnerabilities could expose residents and the city to legal liability if they lead to wrongful arrests or data leaks.
Wong also criticized past city spending on gunshot‑detection technology, saying Cleveland had spent "$150,000 on a ShotSpotter study" that failed to produce conclusive results and called out a proposed $3,000,000 purchase of a different gun‑detection product as premature: "We are literally buying the sequel before we understand the first movie." She raised a possible conflict of interest after a former council member left office to work for Flock, asking why the city's one‑year revolving‑door rule had not been enforced.
Wong framed her request as a call for accountability and investment in residents instead of surveillance: "We don't need more flock ups. We need accountability, knowledge, and equality. And we need investment in people, not surveillance of them." The transcript records no direct response during the public comment period on those specific allegations; the clerk and presiding officer moved to subsequent speakers.
The comment highlights recurring oversight questions for municipalities that deploy automated surveillance hardware: public notice and formal oversight, cybersecurity standards for vendor devices, procurement safeguards for untested technologies, and clear post‑employment rules for former officials. Council did not take immediate action on procurement policy during the meeting; such items were discussed later in the agenda as departmental requests and will proceed through administrative or committee review.
