Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Borough official says State College City does not use 'flock' cameras after resident raises security concerns
Summary
At a State College City council meeting, a resident warned that networked surveillance cameras are insecure and track movements; borough staff member Mr. Fontaine told the meeting the borough "does not have any flock cameras in our system" and said the borough's camera systems have security measures.
A public commenter at a recent State College City council public hour warned that networked surveillance cameras in town may collect and centralize vehicle and license-plate data and said the devices were easy to hack. The commenter listed multiple local intersections where they believed cameras had been installed and asked the borough to review their use and security.
"It would take him about 30 seconds to hack into one of these cameras," the commenter said, describing security vulnerabilities and citing outside researchers who, the speaker said, had found weak protections. The commenter urged officials to "make sure that these cameras are being used responsibly and that they are up to date with their security." The speaker named intersections including North Burrows and Pollock, Whitechorse Drive, West Park Avenue, Shortledge Road, Bigler and Pollock, East Park Avenue and Porter Bridal as locations of concern.
Borough staff responded that the information cited by the commenter was factually inaccurate for the borough’s equipment. "We do not have any flock cameras in our system," said Mr. Fontaine, asked by the moderator to address the questions. "There may be other municipalities or other entities that do use flock cameras, but none of the cameras used by State College are flock cameras." Fontaine added that the borough has used public cameras for 20–25 years and said the borough's system includes security measures.
The exchange left two discrete requests on the record: residents urging a formal review of camera use and security, and a borough representative asserting the borough's equipment and security differ from those described by the commenter. The council did not announce a formal follow-up at the meeting.
Reporting note: The commenter spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting and was not identified by name in the transcript; the borough response was delivered by a staff member referenced in the meeting as Mr. Fontaine.
