Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells Everett council Flock contract may give company ownership of camera and drone data
Summary
A South Everett resident told the council the city's drone and camera contracts with Flock grant the company ownership of collected data and limit public access; the claim was not directly refuted during the meeting and prompted calls for clearer oversight.
Donald Lucas Barnes, a South Everett resident and public commenter, told the City Council on April 29 that the city's drone and camera agreements with provider Flock transfer ownership of the data to the company and limit the city's ability to share or control that information.
"Section 5 of the drone services agreement gives Flock ownership of all the data that the drones and these cameras generate," Barnes said during the public-comment segment. He described contract language and court appeals from other Washington jurisdictions to argue that some agencies are contending that such data are not public records because vendors assert ownership.
Barnes further argued that the city’s recurring payments to Flock rose after initial approvals and that the city has reduced in-person staffing in other services even as it expands surveillance technology. "This council didn't just maintain the Flock contract, it doubled down," he said, listing contract cost figures he said differ from prior council-authorized numbers.
City staff did not provide a document-level rebuttal during the meeting. City Attorney David Hall later noted the administration is reviewing regulatory tools on a range of enforcement topics, but no direct response to Barnes’ contract-ownership claim was made on the record.
The claim raises records-access and oversight questions. If true, the contractual language could affect (1) whether camera and drone footage is categorized as a public record under Washington law, (2) how the city responds to public-records requests, and (3) whether independent civilian oversight or data-sharing agreements are needed.
What the city said: At the meeting the administration did not read specific contract language into the record or dispute Barnes’ interpretation. Barnes cited Section 5 of the drone services agreement and referenced public filings from other jurisdictions as part of his argument. The council and administration did not adopt immediate changes in response; the matter remains subject to legal review and public-records processes.
