Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Alpr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Klamath Falls to remove Flock Safety license-plate cameras; council schedules public briefing
Summary
Two residents warned that Flock Safety automated license-plate readers create an ongoing surveillance dragnet and can enable data sharing and AI-driven misidentifications; the council asked staff to present privacy, data-use, and oversight details in a public session.
Niles Walter, a Klamath Falls resident, told the city council on March 16 that the city should cancel its contract with Flock Safety and remove four automated license-plate readers (ALPRs) installed around the city, calling the devices “an always-on dragnet” that records every vehicle and trip. “These are not your average surveillance camera,” Walter said, adding that the vendor retains collected data and that the technology can be accessed by federal agencies or private companies.
Ren Shaki, director of the Clamoth People’s Party, amplified those concerns by reading a press account of an AI-driven misidentification that led to a wrongful arrest in another state. “When it comes to the Fourth Amendment… it is definitionally unreasonable,” Shaki said, warning that errors and data-sharing risks can destroy lives.
Councilors and staff responded by making a procedural commitment rather than taking immediate policy action. City staff told the council they are available to present technical details about the ALPR program, its data controls, and any agreements with the vendor. Council members said they want public-facing information and suggested either a work session or a presentation during a future meeting so residents can hear how the city manages privacy, access and oversight.
The council did not vote to remove the cameras or amend the contract during the meeting. Instead, members directed staff to prepare an informational presentation focused on privacy protections, data governance, and the city’s current agreements and safeguards. A councilor noted constituent interest and urged that the presentation address “the privacy concerns and what are the gates that the city has around how it’s currently using Flock.”
What happens next: staff will return with an explanatory presentation (public meeting or work session) so council and residents can review the technology, the city’s contract terms, and any recommended guardrails before the council considers policy changes.
Quote highlights: “Niles Walter: “These are not your average surveillance camera… You are always being tracked by these cameras, even if you aren't a criminal.”
“Ren Shaki: “This woman had her entire life destroyed… because one of these cameras… tied her to something that she did not do.”
Context and limitations: The meeting’s public commenters referenced national news reports and alleged usages of Flock Safety data in other jurisdictions; city staff did not present independent audit results or legal analysis at the session. No formal vote or contract amendment was taken at this meeting.
