Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Resident urges Codington County to reject Flock Safety contract over privacy and security concerns
Loading...
Summary
During public comment April 7, James Simmons told the Codington County Board of Commissioners the county should not approve or fund an agreement with Flock Safety, saying the company’s cameras feed a searchable database that raises privacy and cybersecurity risks; no board action was taken at the meeting.
James Simmons urged the Codington County Board of Commissioners on April 7 to decline approving or funding any agreement with Flock Safety, the company that supplies automatic license‑plate reader cameras to law enforcement.
“Flock’s business model focuses and revolves around Flock Nova, the database itself. The cameras just feed information into the network,” Simmons told the board during the meeting’s public comment period. He said the cameras capture far more than license plate numbers and that the vendor aggregates third‑party data — including purchased datasets and, he said, data obtained in breaches — into a searchable system called Flock Nova.
Simmons cited a third‑party penetration test he said found numerous vulnerabilities and pointed to a recent congressional letter asking federal regulators to investigate the company’s cybersecurity practices. He also read contract provisions that, he said, grant Flock broad access to customer data, limit Flock’s liability and preserve Flock’s ownership and control of the hardware once installed. “You can’t sue them for anything ever because they’re not liable for mistakes the system makes,” Simmons said, summarizing clauses he read in a sample contract.
He asked the board specifically to withhold approval and funding for the county sheriff’s office to contract with Flock Safety, and he cited jurisdictions that have canceled or reconsidered agreements with the vendor.
The chair thanked Simmons for his remarks; no formal board action or vote on a Flock Safety agreement was recorded on the April 7 agenda, and the item was not before the board for decision at that meeting. The board moved later in the session into executive session to discuss personnel and contracts under South Dakota law; the transcript does not record any follow‑up discussion or decision about Flock Safety during open session.
The public comment record and the county’s procurement or contract files would be the next places to check for any forthcoming formal action by the county on surveillance‑camera contracts.
