The Legislative Council is planning to draft a resolution expressing its opposition to the use of Flock cameras in town, and will charge its Ordinance Subcommittee with creating an ordinance limiting the use of stationary license plate readers.

Flock cameras became a hot topic in town when the council discovered that there were 18 stationary Flock cameras in town. The Police Department has been using Flock license plate readers in their patrol cars for well more than a decade, but the stationary readers are less than two years in town, approved by the Police Commission.

Flock cameras are automated license plate reading (ALPR) and video surveillance systems made by Flock Safety, a private company. They capture vehicle details like license plates, make, model, color, and unique vehicle features, storing data in a cloud network used by police and private communities. Data collected by the cameras is only to be stored for 30 days.

Dozens of people spoke at the council's August 5 meeting, most in opposition to the cameras.

Resident Kyle Tabor expressed concerns about Flock as an "expansion of the surveillance state" and said they were "unfit for deployment across the country."

"A prison is being built around us," said Tabor.

Resident Neil Cappola called use of the cameras a "slippery slope we are walking down."

Resident Austin Fiore, who seemed reluctant to give his name and address at first and called it "irony" that he needed to give them to weigh in on the cameras, called the cameras an "unreasonable breach of the ninth amendment."

Resident Grace O'Connor drew parallels to the novel 1984, and noted that Flock CEO Garrett Langley said the cameras were "not unreasonable searches" and called those who opposed the cameras "terrorists."

"I pay taxes, clean up hiking trails and parks on Earth Days, support our first responders, donate to the library and food pantry, rescue animals, and vote in all our local elections," said O'Connor. "I've only ever received a ticket for parallel parking. Am I the picture of terrorism?"

O'Connor noted that the money spent for Flock cameras could be spent for an additional officer.

Patricia Picerno said the cost of the cameras is privacy.

"I don't need you to know I went to have my nails done at 2 pm, went to the store at 5 pm, and went to the bar at 9 pm," said Picerno, who asked if there were petitions to have the cameras removed.

Picerno noted that two towns, Killingworth and Windsor, have voted to end contracts with Flock.

Resident Jim Allen pointed to the security of the data being collected and questioned if it is really only being stored for 30 days.

Resident Nick Somerville said Flock is a "massive company with 80,000 cameras across the country, valued at $7.6 billion.” He said its biggest funder is the "guy who started Netscape, Mark Anderson, and there are connections with Palantir owner Peter Thiel and Sam Altman.”

Council Chairman Laura Miller said the purpose of the council's discussions was to find an "actionable and legal course it can take." The council cannot end the contract with Flock, as that goes through the Board of Selectmen. It was determined that the council has three recourses — draft an ordinance setting limitations on use of stationary license plate readers; draft a resolution giving its opinion to the town agencies that do have power over the contract — the Board of Selectmen and Police Commission; and to cut money from the cameras line item in next year's budget.

Councilman Arnie Berman said that unlike speed cameras and bus arm cameras, which are "mousetraps" designed to only work in certain circumstances, the license plate readers register all vehicles that pass them.

"It's not a mousetrap, it’s a diary, and it treats everyone like guilty parties," said Berman.

Berman also noted that Flock is "premised on cross-jurisdiction sharing" of the information it collects.

"That information is outside our control," said Berman. "We can't limit it or audit it. The ability to search any state is a super powerful policing tool, it helped catch the Brown University shooter, and find stolen cars. Unfortunately, it can also be used for abuse."

Berman noted that he had seen that there were "at least 100 cases of police misusing this tech and stalking" individuals.

"Connecticut passed a law that towns must have control of the license data, but Flock's model makes that impossible to comply," said Berman.

First Selectman Bruce Walczak said that a "voluntary request" to the Police Department to turn off the cameras "might be feasible."

Councilman Michelle Embree Ku said an ordinance on the cameras would be a possible recourse but that the timeline to implement the ordinance is lengthy. She recommended passing a resolution asking the BOS and PC to "do something" about the cameras.

Councilman Chris Eide said he did not like Flock camera technology and "never has."

"Flock in particular is problematic," said Eide. "The word trust is so critical."

Eide noted that the audience had people expressing concerns with ICE and people wearing Trump hats, all united to oppose Flock.

"We lack trust in Flock," said Eide. "I would love to do an ordinance to take a hacksaw to it but we can only do what we can do in the bounds of the law."

Council Vice-Chairman Jordana Bloom said she didn't "want to live in a surveillance state" and that as the chair of the Ordinance Subcommittee they would be willing to fast track an ordinance on Flock ahead of the many other issues they are tackling.

"We need to limit it in every possible way," said Bloom. "It's not just Flock, it's much more pervasive."

Councilman Keith Alexander expressed concern with any company that performs data collection in town that could possibly make money off selling that data to third parties.

The council attempted to come up with a resolution immediately, but in the end it was decided to draft one to be approved at its August 19 meeting, to make sure it covers everything it needs to cover.

Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.