Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents petition Dayton to remove Flock Safety cameras, citing privacy and safety fears
Summary
Two residents told the City Council that at least 45 people have signed a petition asking the city to remove eight Flock Safety license‑plate readers and terminate the contract, arguing the devices store movement data, pose privacy and security risks, and lack proven crime‑reduction benefits.
Two residents used the council’s open‑forum period on Jan. 27 to press Dayton officials to end the city’s relationship with Flock Safety, the vendor that operates eight license‑plate‑reading cameras deployed around town.
Ashley Winters (speaker 9), who identified herself at the meeting, suggested the council consider curb‑appeal grants to help long‑time residents maintain properties and raised a separate concern that policies in some assisted‑living facilities requiring staff to call 911 for resident falls could strain first‑responder capacity.
Mandy Hoffmeister (speaker 11) presented a petition she said included at least 45 signatures calling for the removal of all eight Flock cameras and termination of Dayton’s contract with Flock. Hoffmeister told the council she learned an LPR camera had been installed across from her home and described the cameras as storing a “detailed record of everyone’s movements, associations, and routines,” which she said posed privacy and safety risks. She also said the company does not adequately disclose how its systems can be accessed or manipulated and that residents had reported stalking cases in other cities linked to similar systems.
Hoffmeister urged the council to consider that the vendor’s marketing claims about deletion and non‑collection of biological data had been misleading in her view and said studies show camera locations with LPR systems sometimes have higher rates of vehicle stops. “All of these cameras continuously track you, your family, and everyone’s movements in and out of Dayton,” she said, and asked the council to terminate Dayton’s relationship with the company.
Staff acknowledged the petition and said it would forward the petition materials to council members and follow up on next steps.
What’s next: The council did not take immediate action that night; staff said they would circulate the petition details and could return with options for council consideration.
