Residents urge caution on Flock camera contract amid privacy concerns

During the general public‑comment period, several residents raised privacy and data‑use concerns about the county’s proposed relationship with Flock (automated license‑plate camera provider) and urged the board to reconsider or tighten contract terms.

Peter Jones (Hampton District) said he trusts local law‑enforcement officers but not the company and called the arrangement "a huge breach of my privacy," including concern for family members. MJ Molen (Jackson District) said she found multiple recent lawsuits against the company and questioned whether corporate representations about data handling have been honored elsewhere. "Anytime that we implement something that intrudes on people's privacy ... there's a trade‑off," she said.

Other speakers expressed similar worries that a private company collecting location data has commercial incentives and fewer legal constraints than a government agency. Commenters suggested tighter contractual limits on data access, clearer permissible uses, stronger oversight, or using zoning to limit privately operated surveillance infrastructure.

Board members heard the comments during public comment; the transcript records public opposition and skepticism but no final board vote on a contract during the meeting. The county earlier noted that First Energy and other companies would be invited to provide public letters and information, but the board asked companies to delay communications until after the meeting to ensure message consistency.

Next steps: The board may consider the public comments in future procurement or contract discussions; no formal vote on a Flock contract was recorded in this meeting.