Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tiverton council debates Flock Safety cameras as residents raise privacy and data‑sharing concerns
Summary
Councilors and residents clashed over the town’s planned purchase of additional Flock Safety license‑plate cameras (about $23,000 in the preliminary budget). Opponents cited confidentiality and third‑party data‑sharing risks; proponents pointed to past case results and contract safeguards and said any procurement would return to council review.
Councilors and members of the public spent significant time debating whether to expand Tiverton’s network of Flock Safety license‑plate cameras, which appears as a $23,000 line in the town’s preliminary budget.
Councelor Janick said she values public safety but is concerned about where images and plate data are stored and whether contractual protections survive ownership changes. "I value the safety ... but my biggest concern is the confidentiality of our people driving through town," she said, and asked for a pause while the town secures more information about data sharing and contractual safeguards.
Supporters on the council, including Councelor Committ and Councelor Paul, said the police chief previously presented detailed information about retention and storage, and that the town has seen the system help with criminal investigations. Administrator Jones confirmed the procurement is expected to be sole‑source to Flock and that a contract would be brought back to council for review with particulars before further purchasing.
What was decided: The council completed discussion and proceeded with related budget motions; any proposed purchase beyond the preliminary budget allocation would require a contract return to the council for approval and detail review.
Why it matters: License‑plate recognition systems raise privacy and civil‑liberties concerns about third‑party access, data retention and broader surveillance uses. Councilors emphasized they were balancing investigative utility against residents’ privacy questions and legal/contractual safeguards.
Provenance: Discussion and public comments on the cameras occurred during the council's preliminary budget and consent‑agenda conversation and during public comment; the administration and police chief were asked to provide written materials and contractual detail.
