Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent residents urge council to end use of Flock automated license-plate readers
Summary
At the July 7 Kent City Council meeting, residents urged the council to remove Flock automated license-plate readers, citing privacy concerns and contract language that they say gives vendors broad rights to use and share data. Speakers requested an open interactive public hearing; no formal action was taken at the meeting.
At the July 7 Kent City Council meeting, several residents used the public-comment period to urge the council to end the city's use of Flock automated license-plate readers and to hold an open, interactive hearing about the city's contract with the vendor.
Cal McGinn, a Kent resident, told the council he supports public safety but objects to suspicionless tracking. "The fundamental problem with Flock is that it records the movements of everyone, not just people suspected of committing crimes," McGinn said, asking the council to "remove the Flock cameras from Kent and affirm that suspicionless mass surveillance has no place in our community." He argued databases and access tend to expand over time and said the city should not normalize routine collection of residents' movements.
Barbara Clements, a Kent resident of 40 years who said she reviewed the city's contract language, urged a public hearing and raised specific contract concerns. "In looking at the contract... in section 4, the city agreed to allow FLOC to all data at any time," Clements said, and later said a 2025 agreement included provisions that could grant the vendor "unlimited perpetual rights to use all the data" and share it broadly. She asked the council to explain what safeguards are in place and pointed to other cities that revisited contract language in public meetings.
Speakers referenced nearby jurisdictions' actions (Renton suspended its program) and asked the council to clarify what data is retained, who can access it, and what limits are written into Kent's agreements. The speakers did not record a staff response in the public-comment portion of the transcript: city staff did not present new contract clarifications or announce policy changes during the meeting.
The mayor and council did not take formal action on Flock during the meeting; the public-comment period concluded and the agenda proceeded to consent items and presentations. Residents requesting further review asked the council to schedule an interactive public hearing where staff could respond to specific questions about contract terms and technical safeguards.
