Citizen Portal
Sign In

Residents press council to cancel Flock surveillance contracts, citing data access, legal risk and community trust concerns

Twentynine Palms City Council · February 11, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During public comment, multiple residents urged Twentynine Palms to pause or cancel Flock camera contracts, citing alleged unauthorized access in other cities, reported credentials for sale, changes to Flock’s terms asserting ownership of raw footage, and constitutional and privacy concerns.

Multiple speakers used the public‑comment period to press the City Council on the city's use of Flock Safety license‑plate‑reading and surveillance technology.

Speakers including Alexandra Akins, Joseph Candelaria, Elliot (speaker 20), Pauline Pisano and others raised questions about whether the city had adequately reviewed contracts and the risks that private ownership of raw footage creates. Akins noted that she believed a court ruling cited by staff was likely to be appealed and pointed to other California cities (San Jose, Mountain View, Santa Cruz) that have faced legal challenges or canceled contracts after auditing access and use. "There is over a dozen cities here in California who are ending their contract" and Mountain View "suspended its ... camera program" after discovery of outside access, a commenter said.

A commenter summarized research saying Flock recently changed terms of service to clarify that raw footage is owned by the company and may not be subject to the city's data protections; another speaker said a security researcher found portal credentials for sale on hacking forums. Speakers asked for the item to be returned to the agenda for fuller public engagement and for the council to consider contract clauses, access controls, data retention, and decommissioning or cancellation options.

No formal council action to cancel or suspend contracts was recorded during the meeting. Council members and staff did not take a recorded vote on the matter at this session; public commenters requested more public engagement and for the council to reconsider contract terms in light of the concerns raised.