Residents press city to expand Flock camera audit, urge covering cameras until questions are answered

Dozens of callers and a coalition of privacy groups pressed the Palo Alto City Council on June 8 to broaden the scope of the independent police auditor's audit of the city's Flock license-plate-reader (LPR) system, and some urged covering or shutting the cameras while questions about data use, vendor access and accuracy remain unresolved.

"We appreciate that the city is conducting an audit, but the audit needs to answer the questions that matter to the public," said Austin M., who identified himself as representing Indivisible Palo Alto Plus and the Safety Over Surveillance coalition. He read a coalition letter asking the auditor to examine data retention and access, accountability controls, the system's effectiveness and whether vendor data are used for analytics or AI-modeling.

Tim McKenzie, of Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America and the same coalition, told the council the false-positive rate for automated systems is not known and must be examined. "The false positive rate is not known. It should be included in the audit scope," he said, calling out a recent local arrest he described as an example of harms from automated license-plate systems.

Several speakers urged stronger remedies if the audit cannot independently verify vendor claims. "There's only one way to know for certain that Flock is not sharing with those federal agencies. That is to shut the Flock system down and cover the Flock cameras," said Matt Schlegel, a Palo Alto resident, echoing others who worried that federal queries could occur without local auditability.

Security professionals who addressed council also identified technical gaps. "You really have to have actual audit trails to show where these things are actually being stored," said Brandon Downey, a vendor-security reviewer who criticized Flock's architecture and transparency. Brian Eaton, another security commenter, asked the council to "cover the cameras now because they're an immediate threat to public safety," citing concerns about vendor compliance with federal warrants and audit visibility.

Several speakers from coalition groups requested the auditor allow community stakeholders to meet with the auditor and provide the evidence they have gathered. Other petitioners suggested litigation or class-action avenues should be explored if vendor practices violate state law.

City staff did not take action on the public comment block tonight but acknowledged the concerns during later agenda items involving the independent police auditor and audits. Council members who later debated related items said they would expect the auditor to consider the community's questions and that any formal policy changes or lawsuits would need further study.

Next steps: The council did not take a formal vote on Flock tonight. Advocacy groups asked the council to direct the independent police auditor to include the community's questions in the audit scope and to permit stakeholder briefings for the auditor; advocates said they would continue outreach through the auditor and the council.