Ridgecrest speakers deliver 370-signature petition urging council to reconsider Flock surveillance cameras

Michael Citra, a Ridgecrest resident who organized a Feb. 7 town hall, delivered a petition of 370 signatures and asked the council to “reconsider doing business with Flock,” citing concerns about the city’s 24 AI‑powered cameras and contract language that he said lets Flock export local data to develop products and share data “with anybody they decide.”

“We can demand that our vendors do better,” Citra said, adding that the town hall left many attendees less confident about the project. He cited a recent incident in Mountain View in which a camera configuration exposed data to federal agencies and used that example to argue for stricter safeguards in contracts and operations.

Sergio Rodriguez, the city’s transit administrator, and council members later acknowledged strong public turnout and said they had heard residents’ concerns. Another public speaker, Daniel Neal, told the council he felt participants’ objections were dismissed at the town hall and called the camera network a poor use of taxpayer money.

Council members encouraged citizens to organize and discuss options; Citra said his group would consider forming a committee pending direction from the council. The council did not take formal action on the surveillance contract during the Feb. 18 meeting.

Why it matters: The council’s decision on surveillance procurement could affect what data the city collects, how that data is stored or shared, and whether the system complies with state privacy law. Residents framing the issue as both a privacy risk and a fiscal concern signaled sustained local scrutiny.

What’s next: Councilmembers acknowledged the public commentary and said they would factor it into upcoming deliberations; no policy change or vote on the Flock contract occurred at the meeting.