Get email alerts on the Surveillance Flock Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and commissioners press for clarity on Flock camera removal and data access
Summary
Public commenters and commissioners pressed county staff and the sheriff for clarity about the status of Flock license-plate cameras after the county decided not to pursue the program, asking who will remove cameras, whether Flock will keep collecting data, and who is liable for vandalism or replacement costs.
Public commenters and commissioners at the Isanti County Board of Commissioners meeting focused on the future of a pilot deployment of Flock license-plate cameras, pressing for clear answers about removal and data access.
Jeff Holmgren, introduced by the chair as being "from the city of Isanti," asked whether the cameras would be taken down now that the county is not pursuing the program and said he "prefer[s] them being taken down immediately, stop tracking us." Commissioner Christiansen said constituents want to know who would be responsible if cameras are vandalized and whether the county would be on the hook for replacement costs. Commissioners noted that Sherburne County recently voted to remove its cameras.
Administrator Amanda reported a sheriff's update that three cameras in Isanti County were damaged (cut down) and said the county "are not liable for the costs related to those damages" because the deployment was a trial and the county had no contract with Flock. Amanda said access for deputies will end at the end of August and that the sheriff will confirm with Flock whether the company will shut the devices off or continue collecting data once county access ends. Amanda said the sheriff would follow up with a clarification and could provide a public statement or email to the board.
Commissioners discussed additional practical concerns: one commissioner said a replacement camera can cost up to $7,000, and others mentioned a publicly accessible audit site (described in the meeting as "Have I Been Flocked") that lets a person enter a license plate to see if it appears in public audit logs. Commissioners agreed to ask the sheriff to make a public statement and to get clarification from Flock about data access and whether any county action to physically cover cameras could create liability.
The board did not take a formal vote on next steps during the meeting; staff and the sheriff were tasked with clarifying the disposition of the cameras and whether Flock would continue to collect data after county access ends.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
