Residents and faith leaders urge transparency, call to end Flock Safety camera contract
Loading...
Summary
Multiple residents and faith leaders urged Tompkins County officials to reject renewal of the Flock Safety camera contract, citing privacy risks, potential cross‑jurisdictional subpoenas and a demand that the Flock working group hold public, transparent meetings.
Dozens of public commenters told the Tompkins County Public Safety Committee on March 24 that the county should not renew its contract with Flock Safety and that the Flock working group must operate in public.
Reverend Kirianne Weaver of First Presbyterian Church said she feared Flock data could be subpoenaed or obtained by out‑of‑state warrants in cases such as abortion‑related travel bans, noting that congregants and church programs rely on privacy. "A warrant is received, Flock responds to it on our behalf without our knowledge," Weaver said.
Reverend Cynthia Weaver, also of First Presbyterian, urged the committee to "reject renewal of the Flock contract this year, and also vote immediately to disconnect those cameras currently installed," arguing that promises about data deletion and privacy have not held up in practice.
Other speakers recounted operational concerns and urged accountability. Marcus Converse described a constituent report that officers said cameras were "off" during an attempted abduction; he pressed the committee to follow up with the Ithaca Police Department. Brian (first name only) urged members to scrutinize contract terms that appear to give Flock wide discretion over analytic data, and he suggested temporarily covering cameras until the county decides on policy. Ruth Yarrow cited written guidance from the state's supervisor of public safety programs saying municipal decisions on Flock use would not necessarily affect grant funding and suggested that any savings could be redirected to youth services.
Amanda Kirch Gessner, a lifelong Tompkins County resident, framed the debate as one of trust and process. She said prior "opaque" public‑safety work eroded confidence and argued that any working group recommendations must be produced through open, accessible meetings if they are to be credible.
The committee noted that the county has scheduled the Flock Safety Camera Working Group to meet in the first week of April. No formal vote on the Flock contract occurred at this meeting; public comment was taken as the working group and the committee prepare next steps.
The public's comments focused on three recurring points: legal exposure if private‑sector vendors must respond to subpoenas or warrants, the limits of contractual "ownership" or control of analytic data, and the need for transparent process for any working‑group deliberations. The committee did not take immediate action on the contract during this session.
