Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Ridgecrest to cancel Flock surveillance contract over alleged data sharing
Summary
Public commenters urged Ridgecrest city council to review and potentially end the city’s contract with Flock, citing alleged improper employee access, redacted logs, out‑of‑state sharing and contract clauses that allow training‑data use; the mayor said staff and legal counsel will review the contract.
Public commenters told the Ridgecrest City Council on April 1 that the city should end its contract with Flock, the vendor that operates the city’s 24 automated license‑plate and object‑recognition cameras, citing what they described as evidence of improper data access and questionable contract language.
Resident Mike Litetra asked the council to “rid us of this plague,” saying Flock employees have used search tools across networks nationwide and that audit logs and internal recordings show employees viewing live camera networks and altering logs. “They are abusing the system. We know it. They know it. And all they care to do about it is hide the evidence,” Litetra said.
Another resident, Jamie Jones, told the council that two contract clauses remain unaddressed: section 5.3, which Jones described as an "insecurity clause" permitting disclosure to third parties, and section 4.3, which Jones said gives Flock a perpetual, royalty‑free license to use city data to train AI models. Jones cited recent local actions and national reporting, saying that South Pasadena canceled its Flock contract and that state regulators in Texas issued enforcement notices. “Why is Ridgecrest still acting as a laboratory for their unproven technology?” Jones asked.
Jones pressed the council to confirm whether the Flock contract—whose initial term she said expired March 26—had been renewed and to suspend the system until the clauses are removed or revised. “If no, great. If yes, did you get written commitment from Flock to strike those clauses?” she asked.
Council response was procedural: Mayor Indicott said staff have scheduled a meeting with the city attorney and the police chief to review the contract and legal exposure and that the council will announce what can be disclosed afterward. "We do have a meeting on the books with the lawyer and we're going to get the chief of police and we're going to look at it," the mayor said. The mayor also cautioned that the public‑comment period is not for council deliberation.
The speakers cited examples reported elsewhere—alleged employee searches across multiple networks, missing or redacted logs, and instances where plate‑reading errors reportedly produced false positives—but made claims as public comment rather than presenting a staff report or a council motion. Council did not take immediate formal action to suspend or terminate the system during the meeting.
Next steps: the mayor said staff will meet with legal counsel and police leadership; the city will announce what aspects of that review are permitted for public disclosure after the legal meeting. Community members said they expect a formal agenda item and public discussion on the contract in a future meeting.
Quotes used in this article are drawn from public‑comment remarks and the mayor’s on‑record responses during the April 1 Ridgecrest City Council meeting.
