Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to act on Flock surveillance cameras, request town hall
Summary
Two residents and other speakers urged the council to review the city’s contract with Flock, alleging insecure, AI‑enabled cameras, centralized image licensing by the company, and a 115‑signer petition; council directed staff to pursue a town‑hall discussion but took no formal action.
Several residents raised privacy and security concerns about Flock Technologies’ camera system during public comment, urging the City Council to allow fuller public review and discussion.
Michael Citra said a blogger had found more than 60 Flock cameras in other jurisdictions that were publicly accessible and downloadable, and he described Flock’s product as “high resolution AI‑powered pan‑tilt cameras that automatically zoom in, track, and record every person they see.” He said the devices appear to record and can extract identifying information, and warned the technology could be used to create a centralized record of people’s movements. “This is about total surveillance of everyone, everywhere, all the time,” Citra said.
Brenda, identifying herself as a Ridgecrest resident, said 115 people had signed a petition asking for more public review and that the Flock contract leases equipment and licenses images to the company so the city does not own the footage. “All rights to the images are owned by Flock,” she said, and described police requests to review footage from business locations. Brenda also cited a news article and urged the council to add the matter to a future agenda or hold a town hall so residents could be heard.
Speakers also cited a December email from Flock’s CEO and criticized company talking points defending the product’s security. One commenter said the company has received venture capital backing and named its lead investor as Andreessen Horowitz; that funding amount was stated by a speaker as $102,175,000,000 (claimed in public comment), a figure not independently verified in the meeting record.
The council did not take a formal vote on the Flock contract during the meeting. One council member asked whether the police chief would be willing to hold a town hall on the system; the chair directed staff to try to schedule a town‑hall discussion so residents could address concerns in a longer forum.
No company representatives appeared during public comment and no policy change was adopted at the meeting.
