Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flock Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Pensacola council to cancel Flock camera contract, citing privacy and opioid-fund concerns
Summary
Multiple residents used the Leroy Boyd forum to press the council to halt or cancel the city's contract with surveillance vendor Flock, arguing the contract was pushed through without adequate public notice, that opioid-abatement funds were being used inappropriately, and that the company may have broad data-licensing rights.
Several Pensacola residents pressed the City Council on March 12 to cancel or at least publicly debate the city's contract with Flock, the private surveillance vendor whose automated-license-plate readers and networked cameras have drawn national attention.
Speakers including Lucas Pallone, Pepper Weimer, Sarah Brummett and Diego Negron said the contract was executed with inadequate notice and transparency and questioned whether opioid-abatement funds or other restricted settlement dollars had been used to pay for the system. "Using [opioid settlement] funds for surveillance technology doesn't align with that intent," Pepper Weimer told the council during public comment.
Multiple commenters said they had searched public records and found the contract language and implementation plan confusing. Sarah Brummett said the original contract cited county-managed funds and that publicly available records did not show the funds were eligible for Flock. "From where I'm sitting, it looks like our mayor misused funds that were intended to help victims of the opioid epidemic," Brummett said.
Other commenters framed the concern as a civil-liberties issue, saying cameras were placed on common commuter routes and collecting location data without community consent. "I don't want to commute to work being tracked by these cameras," said Alexandra Hatley, who pointed to at least one confirmed installation near Highway 29 and noted an online map where locations can be checked.
Council members acknowledged the public concern and asked for clarifying information. Councilman Charles Baer reviewed contract language and said Flock appears to have been granted a broad license to use "customer-generated data" for service delivery and certain integrations; he said he had outstanding information requests from the administration about current uses and total costs. "While we still own the data, it sounds like Flock has some ability to utilize the data for certain things," Baer said.
No formal council action on the Flock contract occurred at the March 12 meeting. Several speakers urged the council to place the contract on a future agenda for full public discussion; some asked the mayor or police chief to appear with staff to explain data flows, procurement and whether federal or other agencies have access to the data. Diego Negron, speaking in the second Leroy Boyd forum later in the meeting, urged the council to join other cities that have curtailed or terminated Flock contracts.
The council discussed whether the contract renewal or procurement structure would require the item come back to council if it continued beyond a two-year term; one member said a future renewal would likely require council review. Council members asked staff for interpretations of contract classification (service vs. capital/hard install) and for details on funding sources and data-sharing arrangements.
