Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge audit and strict policies for Flock AI cameras in Mitchell County
Summary
Public commenters told the Mitchell County Board of Commissioners they are concerned Flock’s AI-enabled cameras collect searchable, sensitive data, have documented cybersecurity flaws, and may permit external access; speakers urged a statutorily required audit, release of the contract and formal policies limiting access and retention.
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters told the Mitchell County Board of Commissioners that the county’s use of Flock AI-enabled camera systems raises privacy, security and accountability concerns and urged the board to require a formal audit and publicly posted policies before permitting further use.
Michael Harris, who opened public comment, said the technology goes beyond license-plate images and warned of searchable databases and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. “There is no right to privacy if you can be seen from the public vantage,” Harris said, adding that Flock’s platform, in his description, includes artificial-intelligence search features and has documented vulnerabilities in the federal cybersecurity database.
Nia Charlton said the incidents she reviewed nationally show misuse of automated camera systems, including unauthorized sharing and stalking. “This is just one glimpse of the abuses that have occurred from the use of these cameras,” Charlton told the board, urging local review and documentation of any data sharing or external access.
Another resident asked the county to post the company contract, clarify the system’s cost and architectures, and adopt a written policy that specifies who may access footage, retention periods and safeguards. The resident framed the request as three priorities: full transparency, a clear written policy defining access and retention, and public accountability before expanding system use.
Board members thanked the speakers and said they would look into the matter. The record does not include a board vote or formal staff response committing to a specific audit timeline during the meeting; county counsel and staff were present later in the meeting for separate agenda items.
