Residents press Shelton council to cancel or tighten Flock camera contract over privacy concerns

At the July 7 Shelton City Council meeting, multiple residents urged the council not to renew the city’s contract with Flock, the private company that supplies license-plate and street‑facing cameras, arguing the devices threaten privacy and have been misrepresented.

Why it matters: Commenters said Flock’s cameras and related services go beyond license‑plate recognition and can be used to profile residents, harvest commercial data and monitor people near schools. Several residents asked the council to cancel or rigorously renegotiate the contract scheduled for renewal in August.

Residents’ arguments and allegations: Griffin, a Mason County resident, told the council that corporations use surveillance to gather consumer data and undermine small businesses, and urged Shelton to "cancel, not to renew its contract with Flock." He said the company can harvest information that allows private firms to "control our spending, cement our monopoly, and destroy America's main streets." (Attribution: Griffin.)

Matthew Hilton detailed three concerns: that Flock has misrepresented product capabilities in other jurisdictions, that vendors lock customers into long subscriptions, and that hardware is expanding to Bluetooth and Wi‑Fi monitoring that would track devices, not just license plates. He warned the council that Flock stores data offsite and has been hacked elsewhere, sometimes exposing live camera feeds and license‑plate data. (Attribution: Matthew Hilton.)

Remote commenter Carissa Wallace asked who has access to Flock footage and how long data are stored, citing national cases in which officers misused license‑plate readers and Flock employees reportedly accessed footage inside private businesses and children’s facilities. She said safety and privacy are at risk if access and retention policies are unclear. (Attribution: Carissa Wallace.)

Defensive remarks and council response: Multiple council members acknowledged privacy concerns but also pointed to cases solved with camera footage. One council member said Flock played a role in locating suspects in child‑predator investigations and that the technology "solved lots more cases," including stolen‑property and homicide investigations. Several members asked staff and police to convene discussions with residents and provide more information before the August contract decision.

What the council will do next: Council members said they plan further study and a study session is scheduled; the city manager and police department were identified as participants in forthcoming briefings. No contract decision was recorded at the meeting.

Claims and exchanges: The meeting recorded direct accusations that Flock misled other jurisdictions about heat‑map features and partnerships; the council did not adjudicate those claims at the meeting and asked staff for more information. The debate juxtaposed resident concerns about data collection and student safety with council members’ law‑enforcement and public‑safety rationale.

Ending: The council did not vote on the Flock contract on July 7; members directed staff to follow up with the police department and to schedule additional briefings before the contract renewal date.