Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Collins residents urge pause on Flock cameras, propose ballot measure for transparency and voter approval
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Fort Collins City Council to pause use of Flock/ALPR cameras, cited contract language and audit data suggesting external access, and introduced a Northern Colorado Privacy Coalition ballot initiative requiring pre-installation transparency reports and voter approval; city staff pledged follow-up by May.
Dozens of residents used the public-comment period at the Fort Collins City Council to press officials over the city’s contract with Flock and the broader deployment of automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras.
Marge Norskog, a District 2 resident, told the council she reviewed Flock network audit files and found that, before access was limited to Colorado, organizations outside the state made hundreds of thousands of requests to Fort Collins camera data. She said that while the city’s contract states the city owns its data, the access logs suggest the city “does not control it,” and she urged the council to halt data collection until the agreement and governing laws for ALPRs can be reassessed.
Janice Ord (District 6) read clauses from the master services agreement, citing sections she said grant Flock a license to use anonymized customer data and allow disclosure of footage to law enforcement or third parties under conditions such as legal process or perceived security needs. "It appears we have potentially left a private entity the right to determine when and how to distribute and use data obtained in Fort Collins," she said, and asked the council to consider oversight measures.
Other commenters raised related concerns. Glenn Widdicombe cited an open letter to the Federal Trade Commission and a public demonstration alleging vulnerabilities in Flock cameras and recommended canceling the contract and taking down installed cameras. Esraiah Steyer, representing the Northern Colorado Privacy Coalition, described a proposed ballot initiative that would require a transparency report released before any surveillance installation (detailing deployment locations, data captured, storage and sharing) and would require voter approval for new installations.
Speakers making privacy and civil‑liberty arguments included Ash Ibarra and Daniel Ibarra, who said mass surveillance undermines trust and that the public should decide surveillance policy; Spencer Burris and Tyler Davidson warned of historical parallels and criticized rhetoric they attributed to company leadership.
Council response and next steps were procedural: Council member Pat Yandi asked whether the city attorney could follow up on a separate question about EcoFest rules raised by Kevin Cross; the city attorney said staff would follow up. The city manager committed to returning to council with options on Flock and related technologies by May, including consideration of state‑level developments, and noted that the initiative appears broader than a single technology and may affect emergency response, traffic management, utilities smart meters and other city systems.
Why this matters: Residents described contract language and audit logs they say raise privacy and security concerns, and a citizen ballot initiative would change how the city approves surveillance technology. The city manager’s commitment to deliver options in May provides a near‑term opportunity for council action or further public input.
Next step: The city manager told council staff would present follow-up options in May; the council did not take formal action on Flock during this meeting.
