The Green Bay Common Council voted on Dec. 16 to approve an agreement with Flock for automated license‑plate readers and a drone first‑responder (DFR) program after adopting an amendment requiring law‑department review and contractual data‑security protections.

Public comment featured dozens of speakers who opposed the proposal on privacy, cost and equity grounds. Critics cited recent scrutiny of the vendor nationally and raised concerns about insecure devices, potential data‑sharing with outside agencies and mission creep. “Programs like Flock normalize the idea that people should be tracked, monitored and collected as data while just existing and moving through any city,” said Jay Gibbs, a labor representative, urging rejection of the $1.3 million, five‑year package.

Police and fire officials defended the program as a situational‑awareness and first‑responder efficiency tool. Police Chief Davis said the drones would be launched only in response to calls for service, characterized the DFR use as “first responder” rather than continuous surveillance, and described existing department policies that restrict recording of First Amendment protected activities. He said the program is intended to provide rapid situational awareness and to conserve officer time on false or cleared calls.

Flock representatives and technical consultants answered security questions, said multifactor authentication has been rolled out to most law‑enforcement partners and described audit logs and transparency portals for flight data and LPR access. The chiefs and vendor representatives said recorded footage belongs to the city under the agreement and that Flock’s role is primarily to provide platform and operational support.

Council members pressed for stronger contract language and moved an amendment making final approval contingent on law‑department review to ensure the city controls footage, can audit access logs and may terminate the contract for violations. That amendment passed and the amended motion to approve the contract passed on a council vote.

Council members said the outcome balances public‑safety utility with data‑security safeguards; opponents signaled they would continue to press for stronger policies and oversight.