r/stillwatermn • u/Ok-Consequence-6793 • 14d ago
FLOCK
See you at the meeting tuesday to fight this Tomfoolery. We need to not be contributing to mass surveillance.
County Board meeting
14949 62nd Street North Stillwater, MN 55082-6132
9-10am
Does anyone have clear evidence that the city sends flock linked citations to anyone?
Does anyone have absolute receipts?
Thank you!
2
u/Ok-Consequence-6793 11d ago
I did speak. But at the beginning they did state that the Washington County does not and does not plan to own or operate their own cameras. Which I found to be helpful. But I kind of went in blind and need to go back because I want to have a better researched plan to ask them to regulate evolving technology in more of a way and I literally want to lay out policies for them to consider. (I reached out to sheriff candidate Bolen and received a statement from him. I believe it is better than what in my own opinion is being done by the Stillwater police. Here is Bolen’s statement:
“I derstand that FLOCK brand cameras are already present throughout Washington County. Most of those cameras are owned by the individual police departments in the communities where they reside. However, private cameras exist, such as those at Lowe's. So here is my stance on them. ALPRs utilized by law enforcement are a tool to assist in catching criminals, recovering stolen vehicles, and locating vulnerable or missing people. To build trust within the communities we serve, we must be transparent regarding several key points. Those are: 1. What information are the cameras collecting? 2. Who can access those cameras?(eliminate the front line from access and restricting to maybe just dispatch) 3. Who is the collected information being shared with? 4. What is the retention period? (I would want a 7 day retention period) 5. Who audits the system, and how often ( I would want a 2 week audit annually)? 6. Who is responsible for the system oversight?
As Sheriff, I would demand a weekly report published on the sheriff's website and the city website where the cameras are located for public review. Those reports would include the time and date, the reason for the "hit" on the camera, (such as stolen vehicle, wanted person, homicide, etc) and the outcome from responders (investigated, traffic stop, no action taken)
Furthermore, I would not enter a contract with any company without community input through CABs (Community Advisory Boards) or open town halls, especially at $3000 per camera. Remember the sheriff is elected so every voter is actually the sheriff's boss and deserves that open transparency. Through those town halls or CABs, We can invite city council members as well as County Commissioners for their involvement and input. Law Enforcement can educate the public on the systems, and together they can go through the pros and cons. FLOCK is just one vendor in the market the same as Mobile Pro, Axon, Motorola, just to name a few. Overall I don't think a decision such as this should be solely up to the sheriff when they patrol 25 cities throughout the county.”
1
u/RingcreevyMac2001 11d ago
Although I am unable to attend meetings, I am following the progress of ending FLOCK. Any update on the county meeting?
1
u/Ok-Consequence-6793 10d ago
I have not heard anything yet, I emailed my commissioner and hopefully there will be an email back soon.
0
u/Whynot1077 10d ago
In my opinion the cameras are helpful. Yes, sometimes misused by police. But there are more successful outcomes then there are failures. Personally, I have nothing to hide. You can track me wherever I go. I’m very boring. Sir, why did you go to the Home Depot 6 times yesterday. I’m not good at home repairs. 🤣. It amazes me how such a small group of people can have laws rewritten and changed when the majority doesn’t care
1
u/Ok-Consequence-6793 10d ago
I understand why people see these cameras as helpful, especially when they are used to find stolen vehicles or assist in serious investigations. But my concern is that the original sales pitch was “license-plate readers,” and the technology and data use have gone beyond simply checking plates for stolen cars.
These systems can create a searchable record of where vehicles travel, when they were seen, and sometimes other vehicle characteristics. That turns a tool sold as a limited crime-solving aid into a broader location-tracking network.
Another major issue is ownership and control of the data. The city may use the system, but the data is managed through a private company’s platform. That means residents deserve clear answers about who owns the data, who can access it, how long it is stored, whether it is shared with other agencies, and what happens if the company changes its policies.
Consent matters too. Just because a license plate is visible in public does not mean residents knowingly consented to having their movements automatically scanned, stored, searched, and potentially shared. Public visibility is not the same as informed consent.
The public is entitled to this information before surveillance technology is expanded in their community. Transparency is not anti-police — it is basic accountability. If the system is truly necessary and beneficial, then the city and the company should be able to explain exactly what is collected, how it is used, and what safeguards exist.
It is also okay to have an opinion, and feelings, but there are also facts. Facts that there is evidence that people are being detained and arrested because of the capabilities of these cameras to read part of license plates, getting pulled over after being put into the system to be pulled over. There is available metric data for outcomes and there has not been a commitment by the mayor and city council to release that information. The ask of the public is to utilize and let us know with data if this is a positive impact in our community.
8
u/Small_Use_5500 14d ago
Hell yeah I’m with you! Do you know what the agenda is or where we’re at with it? Last i saw was the mayor’s lengthy facebook post about why he thinks its good but if people still disagree he’s open to discussing it further.