Grass Valley residents press council to end Flock ALPR contract amid data-sharing concerns

Dozens of Grass Valley residents urged the City Council to suspend or cancel its contract with Flock Safety’s automated license-plate reader (ALPR) system, saying the cameras have become a vehicle for mass surveillance and unauthorized data sharing.

At the start of public comment, Rich Deffler, a Washington Hill resident and former National Security Agency cryptologic linguist, said the cameras provide a ‘‘direct contact to Palantir’’ and described what he called numerous ‘‘fraudulent hits’’ in the system. ‘‘I want to put it on the agenda and I want to talk about it as a community,’’ he said.

Other speakers presented public-records figures and legal concerns. One commenter said Northern California fusion-center searches of the city’s system numbered 14,539 in a single month and that roughly 13,000 of those searches lacked case numbers or detailed justifications. Lindsey, a resident who reviewed the city’s release of raw files, cited Senate Bill 34 and told the council she believed the pattern of out-of-state and federal access created legal exposure for the city.

‘‘If that sharing is happening here the way it appears to be, Grass Valley is exposed,’’ Lindsey said.

Several speakers described personal-security risks tied to searchable camera data. Risa Crull said the camera database made her vulnerable to a stalker and asked the council to ‘‘cancel your Flock safety contract now before the lawsuits start coming in.’’ Joelle and other residents said the presence of the cameras chilled ordinary life in town.

Speakers repeatedly requested that the council agendize a dedicated review: proposals included immediately covering cameras as an interim measure and suspending searches pending a public audit of access logs and contract terms.

Council members heard the comments during the public-comment period but did not take immediate action to halt system use. Mayor Hodge acknowledged the public’s concerns earlier in the meeting and reported other agenda business; there was no council vote or formal staff directive on the Flock contract recorded in the meeting transcript.

Why it matters: Residents argued the issue raises civil-liberties and legal questions about whether ALPR data is being shared appropriately under California law and whether local oversight is adequate. Speakers cited SB 34 and California Civil Code provisions as the legal framework they were relying on when calling for suspension or termination.

What’s next: Multiple speakers said they had compiled records and petitions and urged the council to place the item on an upcoming agenda so city staff and legal counsel can respond to specific access logs, data-sharing arrangements and contractual terms. The council did not set a follow-up date during this meeting.

Quotes: "This is a direct contact to Palantir," — Rich Deffler, Washington Hill resident. "If that sharing is happening here the way it appears to be, Grass Valley is exposed," — Lindsey, resident. "Cancel your Flock safety contract now before the lawsuits start coming in," — Risa Crull, resident.

Ending: Public commenters closed the allotted public-comment time after roughly 30 minutes of testimony; council members thanked participants and later continued with the agenda. No formal council action to suspend or terminate the Flock contract was recorded in this meeting.