Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Tompkins County to pause Flock camera spending over security, privacy and contractual concerns
Summary
Multiple public commenters told the legislature Flock camera deployment risks residents’ privacy and may expose a searchable database to many agencies; speakers cited letters from federal lawmakers, alleged security vulnerabilities and contract terms that allow data reuse or disclosure.
Several residents and privacy advocates used the public comment period on Nov. 18 to press the Tompkins County Legislature to reconsider use of Flock surveillance cameras and to reconsider spending grant funds on the technology.
Naomi Grassick summarized a letter from U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden alleging Flock had not implemented promised safeguards and said local images and vehicle movements are recorded and stored for 30 days and searchable by more than 100 law‑enforcement agencies. “Every time I leave my neighborhood on West Hill, my car is graphed by a Flock camera,” Grassick said, describing what she called a digital fingerprint that captures license plates, make and model, stickers and damage.
Other speakers, including Reggie Teasley and Leonardo (Leo), cited letters from federal lawmakers to the company and a recent FTC inquiry request, and described documented incidents elsewhere of unauthorized searches and password compromises. Leo parsed contract language, saying the county contract reserves Flock’s right to reuse anonymized data to develop new products and to turn over data when Flock determines a legal requirement exists — language he said reduces local control over how location data may be shared.
A technical commenter summarized white‑paper findings alleging device and API vulnerabilities, lack of enforced multi‑factor authentication and storage of images unencrypted on some devices. “Flock’s promise that images of people are not stored is a complete lie,” one speaker said, citing factory test photos found on devices and insecure default credentials.
Legislators acknowledged the concerns and said the county would follow up with stakeholders and public‑safety partners. Some legislators noted the sheriff’s office had updated its internal policy and required case numbers for searches; speakers countered that the Flock software does not force case numbers and that policy differences among agencies leave data accessible across jurisdictions.
