Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to review Flock AI camera contract after reported security exposures
Summary
Michael Chaporan told the Cumberland council that dozens of Flock (Flux) AI‑powered cameras have been publicly accessible, citing researchers and journalists who found over 70 exposed feeds; he asked the town to review or not renew the contract. Council directed him to Chief Benson for technical follow‑up; no formal action was taken.
Cumberland — During the public‑comment period June 17, resident Michael Chaporan urged the council to review the town’s contract for Flock AI‑powered license‑plate cameras after he said independent researchers and journalists found dozens of exposed camera feeds online.
“Dozens of Flux AI‑powered cameras were found streaming live video and 30‑day historical archives to the public internet with no password or login credentials required,” Chaporan told the council. “They exposed over 70 cameras. They would watch a man leave his home in the morning. They would watch a woman jogging alone on a forest trail in real time.” He said the researchers found critical firmware and API vulnerabilities that could allow rebooting devices, downloading or deleting recorded footage and achieving remote code execution.
Chaporan asked the council to review its contract with Flock and consider not renewing the 2027 renewal if the vendor cannot demonstrate secure operations; he said he could supply sources to the town.
Council leaders did not debate the technical claims in session. The council president advised Chaporan to contact Police Chief Benson and noted there is an existing policy associated with the cameras; the chief was offered as the appropriate operational contact to answer technical and contractual questions. No vote or directive to staff was recorded.
What happens next: The resident was advised to follow up with Chief Benson for technical answers; the council did not place the contract on the agenda at the June 17 meeting. The public comment is on record; any formal review or contract action would require a future agenda item and public hearing.
