Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Smyrna to cancel Flock contract; council defends system and cites safeguards
Summary
Two residents urged Smyrna to cancel its contract with Flock surveillance systems, calling it unconstitutional and abusive; the mayor and a council member defended the system as a public-safety tool and cited internal controls, while one council member recounted that Flock aided in identifying violent assailants.
Multiple residents used the public-comment period to press the Smyrna mayor and council about the city's contract with Flock, a private company that provides license-plate readers, cameras and drone capabilities. Chris Nave described a roughly $5,700,000 contract over 10 years for 75+ cameras and two drones and warned the technology can create a —mosaic— of people's movements that implicates Fourth Amendment privacy protections.
Anastasia Pixler told the council she felt —disappointed and betrayed— and accused the city of contracting with an —immoral company— whose collected data can be sold; she said cameras were collecting data near her home and cited Georgia's ALPR statute (as given in the transcript). Pixler urged the council to cancel the contract and remove the cameras. Her comment included: "The only solution is to cancel the flock contract and remove the cameras."
The mayor responded that the council considered the decision carefully and that the system is intended "to keep our residents safe," saying the police chief endorses the technology and describing it as a "force multiplier." The mayor added the city has internal controls and that the data "is kept by our law enforcement" and "is not used for non law enforcement reasons."
Councilmember Oglesby gave a personal account in which he said he was the victim of a violent attack in December and that "it was the flock cameras that helped us identify those assailants." He described being —torn— about the surveillance tension but said the technology had helped in his case and that the council would hold anyone who misuses the system accountable.
The meeting record shows competing claims: residents asserted constitutional and statutory privacy concerns and urged contract cancellation; city officials emphasized public-safety benefits and internal safeguards and cited the police chief's endorsement. No formal action to change the contract was taken during the meeting.
