Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears Flock Safety pitch; lawmakers press privacy and security questions
Summary
Flock Safety representatives described how license-plate-reader (LPR) cameras can aid police investigations and Silver Alert responses; council members sought details on privacy, federal integration, pricing and recent reports of unauthorized access to camera feeds.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives from Flock Safety briefed the Glenn Heights City Council on license-plate-reader (LPR) technology, describing it as a tool to help locate missing people and vehicles and to provide point-in-time license-plate reads to law enforcement.
Gary McCormack, identified as a member of Flock Safety's public affairs team, told the council the company is headquartered in Atlanta and that systems are used nationally to assist police with specific-vehicle searches and cross-state alerts. He said the vendor publishes optional public-facing transparency information about deployments and emphasized data-security measures. Council members repeatedly asked how the system distinguishes a vehicle's driver from other occupants, whether the system is tied into federal databases, whether residents must register their vehicles and how pricing and subscription models work; McCormack said many details depend on local configuration and that pricing was not available during the presentation.
Chief Horn (police) answered technical questions about deployment strategy, saying the department would identify priority locations, look for existing coverage and consider an a la carte pilot (e.g., five or 10 cameras) before expanding. Council members raised concerns about recent reports that some Flock camera feeds were posted online without authentication; Flock and the chief said access-control practices and contract terms determine who can view feeds and that the city would need to resolve ownership, monitoring and privacy questions in follow-up.
