Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Littleton residents press select board to keep Flock cameras off and adopt surveillance policy
Summary
At its May 26 meeting, the Littleton Select Board heard extended public comment urging a permanent policy or moratorium on automated license-plate readers (Flock cameras) and on new data centers; the board said the cameras will remain off until it develops a policy and convenes public input.
Public concern over automated license-plate readers and other surveillance technologies dominated public comment at the Littleton Select Board meeting on May 26, as residents urged the board to keep Flock cameras disabled and to adopt a formal policy governing their use.
Joanne Derry of Harvard Avenue told the board she was concerned about a liquid natural gas operation on Lupoli property and said any cameras there should be “completely dark except when people are actually working there,” asking that lighting and noise be minimized and cameras be motion-activated. Erica Podgorny of Fox Lane thanked the board for unplugging the Flock cameras and asked how the town can prevent the Littleton Police Department from deploying ‘massive surveillance’ without public input.
Multiple commenters raised privacy and governance questions about who can access camera data. Amy Tarlow Lewis urged a moratorium on new data centers and asked the board to adopt strict policy limits. Andrew Stehovic and other speakers warned against broad automated surveillance such as ALPRs and called for clear rules before any system is reactivated.
Board members and staff responded that the cameras are currently off and that the board will not authorize reactivation until it holds public discussions and establishes policy. Town staff and the chair said they will work with the incoming police chief and current police leadership on written policy and that any decision to reuse the equipment would require board review and public input.
The interest in surveillance policy also prompted questions about the procurement and approvals process: commenters said they first learned the cameras were purchased and deployed through lines in a warrant spreadsheet rather than through a visible public agenda item. Board members acknowledged that disconnect and said they will work on clarifying internal processes for warrant review and inter-departmental communication.
The board did not take formal action on a Flock-camera policy at the meeting but recorded public input and directed staff to return with a policy proposal and additional information. The cameras remain disabled pending that process.
