Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise privacy and security concerns about Flock license-plate cameras
Summary
Two residents urged the College Station City Council to revisit the city’s contract with Flock AI, citing worries about the scale of plate-image collection, lack of oversight over derived analyses, possible data sales, and alleged camera vulnerabilities that could expose photos to outsiders.
Two College Station residents used the council’s visitors’ time on May 18 to press elected officials to re-examine the city’s license‑plate reader agreement with Flock AI. Jane English, who identified herself as a College Station resident, property and business owner and parent, said she is “concerned about the amount of money” being spent on Flock cameras and worried the city’s license agreement leaves Flock able to analyze and keep results without public oversight.
John Hamilton, who also addressed the council, said he supports police access to “the right tools” but questioned whether Flock is the right system for College Station. Hamilton described features he said the company’s software can perform—mapping likely daily routes, estimating home and work locations, and a “convoy mode” that can show vehicles that were near one another at multiple locations—and asked how many College Station reads are stored in Flock’s database.
Hamilton told the council he had reported a security vulnerability to police and city cybersecurity staff and said he could demonstrate a camera hot spot that is accessible with a hard‑coded password; he said he had provided the city a research paper documenting that vulnerability and others. “We could walk outside right now to the nearest Flock camera. I could activate its hot spot with three button presses … the password is ‘security,’” Hamilton said.
Both speakers raised two recurring issues: whether the volume of captured images is justified by public‑safety outcomes and whether the city’s contract gives Flock too much unilateral control over analyses or derived data. English asked the council to place Flock on a future agenda for detailed review; Hamilton urged the council to “take an honest look” at the system and whether residents’ data are adequately protected.
City staff did not provide a detailed response during the public‑comment period; Chief Couch was referenced by speakers and earlier meetings were cited. Council members did not vote on policy related to the Flock contract at the meeting; no formal motion or staff direction on the contract was recorded. Council members and staff will need to place the issue on a future agenda if they intend to request follow-up briefings, audits, or contract renegotiation.
