Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff explains Flock camera use as residents raise privacy and dumping concerns
Summary
Sheriff Luke Bingham described the county’s use of Flock license-plate cameras and a voluntary private-camera registration program, saying images are retained 30 days and require case numbers for access; residents and a committee member raised concerns about potential access by federal agencies and local dumping.
At the March 11 Big Valley Area Council meeting, Lake County Sheriff Luke Bingham outlined two county approaches to video surveillance and urged private camera registration while answering privacy concerns raised by residents and committee members.
"If you drive around 20 or 30 minutes in the county, you will be on camera at least 52 times," Bingham said, describing the scope of public camera coverage. He described two programs: Flock license-plate cameras placed at county entry/exit points and major intersections (used by the Sheriff’s Office and local police agencies), and a voluntary camera-registration program in which private businesses and residents provide information so deputies can request footage if needed.
Bingham said Flock images are kept for 30 days and then automatically purged and that access requires a case number and is restricted to California agencies. "Only California agencies can access them, and case numbers are required to avoid potential abuse," he said, adding that access can be turned off when concerns arise.
Committee member Margaux Kambara raised a privacy alarm, citing Santa Clara County’s decision to shut down its Flock system over claims that ICE accessed the data. "Santa Clara County shut down its Flock system because the data had been accessed by ICE," Kambara said. Bingham responded that he was not aware that had occurred in Lake County and referenced a separate past incident in which an Oakland officer accessed San Francisco cameras and that matter was addressed.
A resident reported illegal dumping on the east side of Kelsey Creek by Konocti Packing and asked about placing cameras in that area. Bingham said some Flock cameras have been stolen but noted that footage has helped identify people responsible for dumping in other cases. He reminded business owners that private-property cameras are permissible in public-facing areas but must not be directed into spaces with an expectation of privacy.
Bingham also answered technical and liability questions: the Sheriff’s Office uses 29 Flock cameras internally, Lakeport Police Department uses 11 and Clearlake Police Department uses 23; cameras on private property are a private liability, while ones on county property are county liability. He discouraged placing Flock units specifically in downtown Kelseyville and emphasized the department’s internal controls for handling access.
The meeting record shows the council continues to balance public-safety benefits of camera evidence with community concerns about privacy and third‑party access. No policy change or formal motion on camera programs was proposed at the meeting.
