Boulder residents urge council to cancel Flock Safety camera contract, cite privacy and immigration risks

Dozens of Boulder residents pressed the City Council on March 5 to pause or cancel the city's contract with Flock Safety, arguing the automated license-plate reader network threatens civil liberties and places marginalized residents at risk.

"Our cameras are not neutral," Natasha Rig, a South Boulder resident, told the council during the open-comment period. She said roughly 12,000 Latino residents live in Boulder and that three of the city's '~30 Flock cameras are clustered at the Home Depot on 29th Street, concentrating surveillance at a known day-labor gathering point. "When surveillance data can reach a federal government that has embraced racial profiling, that data becomes a tool of that profiling," she said.

Other speakers cited what they described as the company's pattern of misrepresenting federal contracts and local data-sharing practices in other jurisdictions. "Flock has proven that it is unreliable, deceptive, and profit-driven," Cormack Godfrey said, urging the council not to renew automatic contracts for mass surveillance.

Multiple speakers urged Boulder to follow nearby governments that had recently changed course: Denver canceled its Flock contract and Longmont paused data-sharing, presenters noted.

City staff acknowledged the concerns and said conversations remain active. "Those conversations are still very much ongoing," a staff member said, adding that the city manager and police department have been engaging with community members and the Human Relations Commission.

Council members pressed staff on authority and pathways for action. Council Member Tisha asked whether the council or city manager has final say over the police department contract; City Attorney Teresa and staff explained that under the city charter the city manager is authorized to sign contracts, but council can set policy (for example, privacy rules or sanctuary-aligned criteria) that would constrain or direct contract terms.

Council members expressed a range of views in brief remarks after public comment. Several said they share constituents' concerns about backend vulnerabilities and the potential for data to be used by outside agencies. Council Member Ryan said he was "not comfortable" with the contract as currently structured and that staff are working on a broader policy approach.

Speakers also flagged an estimated annual contract cost of "$75,000 to $100,000," and urged the council to consider redirecting such spending to neighborhood priorities like the South Boulder Recreation Center.

Next steps: staff confirmed they are continuing conversations with the city manager's office, the police department and community stakeholders and that council-level policy work on data, privacy and surveillance is underway. Council members encouraged residents to participate in the forthcoming privacy and facilities study sessions and watch for staff updates.

(Reporting note: quotes and attributions are drawn from public comment and council discussion on the March 5 City Council meeting.)