Residents urge Monroe council to pause Flock Safety camera program, citing privacy and security risks
Loading...
Summary
Multiple Monroe residents urged the council to halt installation and deactivate recently placed Flock Safety ALPR cameras, citing privacy, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, cross-jurisdiction tracking, and costs; police said cameras were installed in the prior two weeks but not yet fully active.
Several Monroe residents used the meeting’s public-comment period on Jan. 27 to press the City Council to stop installing license-plate reading cameras provided by Flock Safety, arguing the devices threaten privacy and pose cybersecurity and cost risks.
Ben Laday, who lives in the Frylands neighborhood, said independent research shows widespread agency searches of ALPR databases and warned of “the spreading of mass surveillance throughout our communities.” Devin Kinison, a lifelong resident, said the cameras “feed to a national bit database with more than 80,000 cameras” and warned that a single misconfiguration or policy change could expose local data to broader searches. “Safety should never come at the cost of our freedoms,” Kinison said.
Ethan Teague framed the installations as a change to Monroe’s social contract, urging an immediate stay, deactivation of current operations, and removal of cameras. “By handing over the intimate details of our daily movements…you are presiding over a complete abandonment of this council’s duty to safeguard the privacy of Monroe citizens,” Teague said. Cybersecurity consultant Logan Hunt detailed technical concerns, including alleged lack of two-factor authentication, reports of leaked credentials, and researchers’ demonstrations of physical reconfiguration vulnerabilities. He also raised budget questions, noting examples of settlements and legal determinations in other jurisdictions.
Tasha Teeter pointed to several Washington and out‑of‑state local governments that had disabled or ended contracts with Flock and recounted a case she said illustrated wrongful reliance on ALPR evidence. Speakers used both the phrases “FLOP” and “flock” when referring to the vendor or cameras; the company identified in public comments is Flock Safety.
Police Chief Jolly told the council the cameras were installed “within the last two weeks” and that they are not yet fully active or in wide use, saying “not everybody’s signed in” and “not all of the cameras are up.” He characterized the program’s goal as capturing serious offenders and assisting with Amber Alerts, but did not describe the department’s data‑sharing settings or retention policy at the meeting.
The council did not take action on the Flock installations during the Jan. 27 meeting. Several speakers asked the council to seek more detail about contract terms, security settings, data retention, local access controls, and whether the department or vendor sends data to any national, cross‑jurisdictional search system.
