Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Ridgecrest council to audit, reconsider Flock license-plate camera contract
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Ridgecrest City Council to review and put its Flock ALPR (license-plate recognition) contract on a future agenda, citing national cases they say show the technology's potential for misuse and privacy harms.
Public commenters pressed the Ridgecrest City Council on May 6 to scrutinize the city's contract with Flock, a vendor of license-plate reader cameras, saying the system had been misused in other jurisdictions and that the city should seek a vendor-specific compliance audit.
"Flock might as well advertise their services as a stalkers toolkit," said Michael Licitra, one of the first speakers in a lengthy public-comment period, summarizing dozens of cases he said demonstrated misuse of ALPR databases by officers and vendors. Licitra handed the council information from multiple prosecutions and internal reviews and asked the city to put Flock back on the agenda so officials could explain how they plan to prevent similar abuses in Ridgecrest.
Several other residents echoed Licitra's concerns, citing recent news reports and a local town hall where large numbers of residents opposed the system. One caller said El Cerrito had voted 3'2 to terminate its contract after an audit found data-sharing with out-of-state and federal agencies; another described vendor employees accessing camera feeds for sales demonstrations.
Speakers asked the council to schedule a compliance and liability audit of the local Flock configuration, to demand transparent access to usage logs, and to confirm what entities outside the city, if any, can query Ridgecrest data.
Councilmembers did not take formal action on the matter that night but several members and staff acknowledged the public's concerns and encouraged residents to document complaints and to participate in any future agenda discussion. One resident asked that two councilmembers sponsor an agenda item; city staff advised that a councilmember's motion and a second would be required to place the item on a future meeting agenda.
The public comment on surveillance concluded with requests for staff to bring back a city-specific review and for the council to consider whether contract guardrails and transparency tools are functioning as promised.
