Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Westland council not to renew Flock camera contract, citing privacy and data-access concerns
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Westland City Council to reject renewal of a proposed Flock automated license-plate-reader contract, citing nationwide access to camera feeds, indefinite data retention, third-party/cloud storage and federal agency use; council members heard the comments but did not take immediate action on the contract during the meeting.
Dozens of Westland residents urged the city council not to renew a proposed contract with Flock Safety, saying the surveillance technology creates privacy risks and broad, indefinite data access.
Several speakers said the Flock proposal in council materials would grant nationwide network access to camera feeds and that data are stored on third-party cloud platforms. "This means that people outside of Westland can access Westland Flock cameras," said David Niemer, who described specific contract language noting nationwide access. "I hope that you would vote no on renewing the Flock contract."
Sailor Maze, who has attended prior council meetings on the topic, warned that Flock has resisted contract changes and cited investigations by other cities. "They will continue to store your data and your residents' data on 3rd party data storages like platforms like Amazon Cloud," Maze said, referencing audits and city decisions elsewhere.
Local resident Joan Saltzman told the council the scale of data collection concerns her: "They store over 2,000,000 plates a month. This creates a geofence that I never opted in for." Other community speakers, including Cameron Mills and Andrew Rasick, urged the council to consider the privacy trade-offs of mass data collection and explore alternatives.
One resident, David Polite, also praised the fire department and spoke in support of firefighters earlier in the meeting; public comment included both criticism of surveillance technology and gratitude for city services.
Council members thanked residents for their research and comments and said they would consider public feedback. Councilwoman Sampey and others noted the city has heard sustained input on Flock for several weeks and invited continued dialogue. The transcript does not record a council vote on the Flock matter during this meeting.
What happens next: Residents asked the council to reject renewal; council members acknowledged the concerns and indicated they would follow up. No formal action to renew or cancel the contract was recorded in the meeting minutes provided.
