Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says Sedalia's "flock" cameras could have found missing person; raises cost and surveillance concerns
Summary
A Sedalia resident told the council that license-plate/face-tracking "flock" cameras might have helped locate a missing person but also warned the devices are mass surveillance and asked about year-to-year costs; the council did not take immediate action.
At the July 20 Sedalia City Council meeting, Joanna Mazanski urged the council to weigh both the public-safety benefits and privacy costs of so-called "flock" cameras.
"If we would have had these flock cameras, we could find Dana Bruce," Mazanski said, identifying a missing-person case she believes the technology could have aided. She said she came to the meeting prepared to ask about the cameras' annual fees and long-term cost to the city but also acknowledged community concerns that the devices are "mass surveillance" and an "invasion." She described a personal police encounter at 1:30 a.m. after moving from Iowa and said she sees positive uses for quick evidence recovery.
Mazanski asked the council to be mindful of the balance between public safety and privacy and said she did not intend to "rant and rave" but wanted to highlight potential benefits, particularly in cases of missing children or abductions.
Council members did not act on the topic during the meeting. No staff report or ordinance regarding deployment, procurement or funding of such camera systems was on the July 20 agenda. The council did not set a follow-up to provide cost detail or a privacy impact review during the session.
The comment was made during public comment; discussion of surveillance systems, procurement costs, and data-use policies typically requires staff analysis and legal review before council consideration of procurement or use agreements.
