Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alpr Flock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aransas Pass council votes to terminate Flock license-plate reader agreement after public criticism
Summary
After extensive expert testimony and resident comments about privacy, security and vendor data practices, the Aransas Pass City Council voted to terminate its agreement with Flock Group Inc. for an automated license-plate reader system and authorized city staff to take necessary steps related to termination.
The Aransas Pass City Council voted to terminate its agreement with Flock Group Inc. for a license-plate reader (ALPR) camera system after several hours of expert testimony and public comment criticizing the system’s privacy and security risks.
A technical presenter warned the council that Flock-powered ALPR deployments produce “nearly 700 searches a day with no requirement of any suspicion or wrongdoing whatsoever before running a search,” and that the vendor’s contract provisions let the company retain and use aggregated patterns from the city’s data even after termination. The presenter told the council the retained patterns can be used to train machine-learning models and described documented security failures that, in other jurisdictions, exposed live camera feeds and archived footage.
A separate local speaker summarized independent findings, noting vulnerabilities documented in a white paper and pointing to a Flock patent that describes features that could identify attributes of people in camera frames. “Those were absolute assurances, but Flock’s own patent determined that was a lie,” the speaker said, summarizing his review of vendor materials and public records.
A Flock representative addressed the council and said the company does not condone misuse and is willing to walk council members through the system and safeguards. “We never want community safety to be at the expense of what your community values are,” the representative said.
Councilmembers discussed contract language, including a termination-for-convenience clause (cited as section 6.2 by city staff) and potential removal fees. One councilmember moved to terminate the agreement and authorized the city manager and city attorney to take necessary actions toward termination. The motion was seconded and, after a brief voice vote, the chair declared the motion carried.
The council did not record a full roll-call tally in the transcript excerpt. City staff noted the contract allows termination for convenience but may require the city to cover specified removal costs; the city attorney had advised the council on available contract provisions.
Councilmembers and several residents asked the council to require a written hardware-removal deadline and a written confirmation that data captured by the system would be deleted rather than merely disconnected. The council’s motion authorized staff to carry out termination steps; the timing and method for removal and data disposition were left to follow-up actions by the city manager and city attorney.
The council’s decision comes after many other jurisdictions have paused, canceled, or terminated contracts with the vendor amid similar privacy and governance concerns, the presenters told the council. The next steps are administrative: staff must notify the vendor, effect termination under the contract, and return to the council with details about removal timing, costs and confirmation of data disposition.
