Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Flock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Norfolk to pause Flock Safety surveillance contract, cite privacy, oversight and equity concerns
Summary
A sustained public‑comment block at the Norfolk City Council meeting featured residents and advocates urging a pause or cancellation of the city’s contract with Flock Safety, citing mass surveillance, lack of independent audits, disproportionate placement in majority‑Black neighborhoods and problematic contract terms.
A string of Norfolk residents and civic advocates on Tuesday urged the City Council to pause any expansion of the city’s contract with Flock Safety, the company that supplies automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs) and related location‑tracking technology.
“Every time one of us drives past a flock camera, the system records our vehicle's license plate, the exact time, the location, make, model, color and unique features,” said Derek Zing, who identified himself as a Norfolk resident and active U.S. Navy member. “This is dragnet surveillance at its most extreme.”
Speakers cited a range of concerns: concentrated camera density in majority‑Black neighborhoods, gaps in independent oversight and auditing of searches, contract language that grants broad rights to the vendor over collected data, and court decisions that raise constitutional questions about aggregated location tracking. Alex Laughlin, a Norfolk resident and local organizer, told the council that Flock went live in Norfolk in May 2023 without an effective use policy in place and that a full operating procedure did not arrive until June 2025 after state law required it. Laughlin said the system recorded more than 1,000,000 vehicle reads per month and that audit logs were not downloaded by the Norfolk Police Department until February 2025 in response to litigation.
Residents provided specific allegations about searches and contract terms. “The contract grants Flock a nonexclusive worldwide perpetual royalty‑free right and license to disclose our data,” Laughlin said, adding that “selling is the only thing explicitly prohibited.” Sarah Charles and Lydia Harden described how Flock cameras can be used in stalking cases and said the systems reduce independence and safety for women and other vulnerable people.
Several commenters asked the council for independent third‑party auditing and greater transparency around the system’s operation, arguing internal police oversight alone is insufficient. “We need truly independent 3rd party auditing and real transparency to restore public trust,” Zing said.
Speakers also pointed to a Christopher Newport University study and court filings that, they said, show dense deployment of cameras in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods and frequent searches of the system. Advocates with the DFLOC coalition and others said municipalities nationwide have canceled similar contracts and recommended Norfolk consider the same.
Council members did not take action on the contract during the meeting; the speakers’ remarks were part of the public‑comment period. Several residents said they will continue pursuing transparency through FOIA requests, audits and legal challenges.
What’s next: Residents called for an immediate pause on further expansion of the ALPR network and for the council to request third‑party audits and a public accounting of all search activity and contract terms. The council did not announce a response or a follow‑up timeline during the meeting.
