Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to remove Flock cameras at packed public comment
Summary
Half a dozen residents told the Stoughton council the ALPR cameras harm privacy, create a chilling effect and were installed without adequate vetting; speakers urged adoption of a people's resolution and immediate deactivation.
A steady stream of residents told the Stoughton City Council that automated license-plate reader cameras and related surveillance networks are unwelcome in the city and that the council should act to end the contract with the vendor Flock.
Speakers across the public-comment block described community life in Stoughton and said mass surveillance undermines trust. "AI mass surveillance, no matter the vendor, has no place in Stoughton," Carrie Kilman, who identified herself as a District 1 resident, told the council. Suzanne Larson, a Sixth Ward resident, said she and other citizens had to conduct independent research because the police department did not independently vet the vendor: "Flock's marketing materials were taken as fact without verification," Larson said.
Other residents raised concrete concerns about where cameras are located and the effect on children and vulnerable populations. "Are we being judged because of our income?" Carla Hansen asked, describing families and children playing near monitored streets. Former alder Jean McGocky urged the council to power down and disconnect the five cameras and to adopt the people's resolution that would require public review and council approval before any future mass-surveillance contracts.
Those public remarks preceded a full council discussion and a later vote directing staff to pursue termination of the Flock contract and to remove or bag the cameras within 48 hours if the vendor does not comply.
