Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to audit Flock camera use and data practices, citing privacy concerns
Summary
A Worcester resident asked the council to audit the city's Flock camera contract after he said the vendor expanded from still‑photo license‑plate capture to video, gunshot detection and broader identification capabilities; he requested reviews of retention, sharing and analysis practices.
Matt Galata, who identified himself as a Worcester resident since 2007, urged the council to order an audit of the city’s Flock camera usage and contract terms, saying the vendor’s product scope and terms have changed since the council originally approved the cameras.
"In the 10/07/2024 meeting, resolution 2024‑79 was passed to purchase and install Flock cameras... the minutes indicate the original use was for license plate cameras and that there was no facial recognition," Galata said. He told councilors that Flock later allowed video capture and has publicly described capacities to assemble databases that identify vehicles by plate and individuals by face.
Galata asked the council to examine three areas: how long Flock retains data (he said Flock claims 30 days but other communities have found inconsistencies), where and for what purposes data is shared, and how Flock analyzes and aggregates data — noting incidents elsewhere where footage was used in sales demonstrations or resulted in disputed enforcement actions.
"This company is certainly capable and willing to overreach the bounds of their terms and services, and the city of Worcester needs to offer protections and privacy to all citizens," Galata said, asking for clearer contractual safeguards and local auditing.
Councilors thanked Galata for raising the issue and acknowledged the need to review vendor practices; no formal motion or vote to audit was recorded during the meeting.
