Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge Detroit to pause Flock surveillance cameras and review police data access
Summary
Multiple public commenters urged the City Council to examine and halt the use of Flock license-plate surveillance cameras and review law-enforcement access to collected data, citing civil-rights and immigration-enforcement concerns and pointing to other cities that have paused contracts.
Public commenters at the Detroit City Council’s Jan. 30 meeting urged the council to end or pause the city’s use of Flock license-plate surveillance cameras and to review who can access the data.
Adam Barrett, a speaker from Detroiters for Tax Justice, told the council the cameras “are an egregious violation of our constitutional rights” and alleged the technology has been used by immigration authorities to locate and detain people. Barrett said several other jurisdictions have canceled or paused Flock contracts and urged Detroit to follow suit.
Josh Mann, another public commenter, expanded the concern to other surveillance systems, saying the police department’s use of the Palantir Gotham platform allows sweeping access to residents’ digital trails and called on elected officials to “remove these” systems from city use.
Ronald Foster, who referenced Detroit ordinance 2021-17, told the council that the city’s surveillance ordinance requires community input before surveillance technology is deployed and argued vendors and corporate counsel must comply with the ordinance’s public-review process.
Why it matters: Public commenters framed the issue as a civil-rights and privacy problem with concrete policy levers the council could use — for example pausing contracts, requiring public hearings under the city’s surveillance ordinance, or directing staff to report on current third-party access to camera data.
What officials said: Council did not take formal action on surveillance during the meeting. Members heard the public comments during the designated public-comment period but no motion or staff directive related to cancelling Flock contracts or a staff report on law-enforcement access was recorded in the meeting minutes.
Next steps: The council may refer surveillance-related items to staff or committee in future meetings; public commenters specifically asked for council action and for the administration to enforce the existing local ordinance on surveillance procurement and use.
