Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Cranston to reconsider Flock Safety camera contract amid privacy concerns
Summary
Public commenters told the council that Flock Safety automated license-plate reader cameras in Cranston track residents' movements and risk misuse; speakers asked how to prevent renewal of a contract they said was extended in 2024 for $380,000 and said Cranston hosts about 29 cameras.
Two members of the public used the July 20 council meeting’s public-comment period to urge the City of Cranston to review or halt use of Flock Safety automated license-plate readers.
"They use AI, surveillance cameras that are automatic license plate readers… they use the cameras to track the daily movements and whereabouts of citizens without probable cause," said Isabella Coulanges of 35 Milton Avenue, who told the council she believes Cranston uses roughly 29 cameras and that at least 240 cameras are deployed statewide. Coulanges said she believes a five-year contract was extended in 2024 at a cost to taxpayers of $380,000.
Isaiah Kalanges of 71 Briarcliff Road expanded on those concerns and described how the systems create searchable records of plate, vehicle make, model, color, location and time. "There's no warrant and no opt out option," he said, urging the council to look into the contract and whether the company’s data-sharing networks raise constitutional or civil-rights issues.
Speakers cited documented national examples of misuse and suggested the city consider suspension, renegotiation or cancellation of the contract. No administration representative provided a substantive response during the public-comment exchange; councilmembers acknowledged the concerns and said they would consider further review.
What the transcript records: Coulanges and Kalanges described the cameras as privately operated by a for-profit company; they characterized continuous tracking and profiling as constitutionally questionable and cited national cases of misuse by law enforcement and company employees. Kalanges listed specific local camera locations he believes are active and said some cameras are operated directly by the Cranston Police Department and others by Flock Safety.
The council did not take formal action on the contract at the July 20 meeting. The public speakers asked for guidance on preventing contract renewal or suspending deployment; council members suggested staff follow up and that the issue could be added to a future docket item for formal review.
Next steps: council staff should confirm contract terms, deployment locations and any audit or oversight mechanisms and return to the council with those facts before any decision about renewal or cancellation.
