5thSergeantPumpkin said:

---

A compromise I don't believe we'll see actually happen, but that I'd totally support: I really like the policies our department has enacted for Flock use. I would support us only allowing another department to use our city's Flock data if they could guarantee equivalent or stronger policies on their side as well. This sets the example, gets the ball rolling on standard precautions.

---

That's impressive, what you guys and gals have enacted. It's just that Flock wasn't initially set up that way. Its open architecture will take major surgery to fix.

I feel like we should be getting ahead of what's coming, and that doubling down on Flock will leave us flat footed when the hammer comes down. I'm pretty certain that hammer is coming.

I'm disappointed we didn't use the moment in the debate to work towards a solution that won't get whacked by that hammer. But I totally understand why my colleagues decided to stay with what's working today, and I hope you guys will give them a little grace in why they voted like they did.

Imagine being the volunteer councilmember that votes against it, we go without the resource, and then a child gets abducted and never heard from again. That is literally what was going through my mind.

When the law changes, I know our folks will pivot hard to get something in place from a legally compliant and trustworthy partner.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

The will of the citizens should always prevail. Democracy when boiled down to it's essence is simply mob rule. The mob does not want FLOCK. Guillotine may come at the polls.

I was in the meeting from start to finish, listened to every word from every speaker. Every person came prepared. Council gave their full and undivided attention regardless of position. Council took notes and asked follow up questions to the Chief and staff on specific issues mentioned by speakers.

The room was heavy. After the second speaker I wrote at the top of my paper "I do not envy council."

The tally wasn't what I hoped for. But the process was robust. On the agenda items after Flock it was obvious how much every member of council had put into it.

To everyone here, the next time you care about something like this, I suggest you go to the meeting, even if you don't want to speak. You will almost certainly come away with a different perspective.

I thank the council for their civility and their service.

Stucco said:

---

I was in the meeting from start to finish, listened to every word from every speaker. Every person came prepared. Council gave their full and undivided attention regardless of position. Council took notes and asked follow up questions to the Chief and staff on specific issues mentioned by speakers.

The room was heavy. After the second speaker I wrote at the top of my paper "I do not envy council."

The tally wasn't what I hoped for. But the process was robust. On the agenda items after Flock it was obvious how much every member of council had put into it.

To everyone here, the next time you care about something like this, I suggest you go to the meeting, even if you don't want to speak. You will almost certainly come away with a different perspective.

I thank the council for their civility and their service.

---

Thanks a ton for that. I mean it.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

The CS police chief could not answer basic questions about the Flock system.

It is also interesting how only the two council members running for office voted against the Flock contract.

zigag09 said:

---

The CS police chief could not answer basic questions about the Flock system.

It is also interesting how only the two council members running for office voted against the Flock contract.

---

easy to vote no when you know its gonna pass no matte what

zigag09 said:

---

It is also interesting how only the two council members running for office voted against the Flock contract.

---

Could really use two-year terms. None of them get to slide through election season hoping we will have forgotten by the time their spot comes up again. Would be a lot more likely to keep them accountable. Maybe we can file a petition for that alongside getting flock added to the ballots for voters to choose. You know they wont do it to themselves.

CS78 said:

---

Maybe we can file a petition for that alongside getting flock added to the ballots for voters to choose.

---

Really interested in this myself. What would it take? I know citizens in Bryan petitioned to get the medians removed and successfully added it to this November ballot.

It's become painfully clear that the only way we can get things in line with the will of the people in Brazos county is to show up at City Hall meetings with pitchforks, and even then we HAVE to follow through at the polls.

BQ_90 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

The CS police chief could not answer basic questions about the Flock system.

It is also interesting how only the two council members running for office voted against the Flock contract.

---

easy to vote no when you know its gonna pass no matte what

---

For what it's worth, I walked out disappointed. I thought I'd made a compelling case that Flock was toxic, that our renewal wouldn't save it, and the legal, regulatory, legislative and public sentiment risk wasn't worth it.

We were given another binary choice- yet again. Flock, or nothing. The truth is, there are viable options that offer privacy-enhanced local controls and storage of data, local control of outside access to that data, restrictions on retrospective queries, integration with existing bodycam and vehicular systems, less administrative burden on our officers, automated one click ORR production when you guys make an open records request- and a potentially ready-made solution that would likely be compliant with pending legislation. And that option doesn't have hundreds of lawsuits.

Now we own this for another year, with the negative hail storm that will continue with it- with each breaking story and it'll be a cascade.

I tried my best. I failed. But I did not walk in there certain of the outcome.

For what it's worth, I predict we will not reach the end of the new contract term.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Yancy I appreciate your efforts. What is mind boggling to me, is that you, a man who made a pretty good living in data and software (medical, HIPPA etc) didn't get the full weight of your expertise past the thick skulls in City government. One of the things that make you a good candidate, in my opinion, is your familiarity with 21st century technologies. Apparently others in city government and staff do not see the value I see in your perspective and opinions in your field, and that is troubling to me as a tax payer.

They have an expert on council and they refuse to listen to him.


"If only we had somebody familiar with sensitive data and databases, and had some expertise in this area to help us out. Little Timmy in the maintenance shop at veterans is pretty good at call of duty but I think he's out sick, maybe that guy who does the radios in the CSU trucks? Other than that who knows. We'll just do what staff and the chief say to do"

EliteElectric said:

---

Yancy I appreciate your efforts. What is mind boggling to me, is that you, a man who made a pretty good living in data and software (medical, HIPPA etc) didn't get the full weight of your expertise past the thick skulls in City government. One of the things that make you a good candidate, in my opinion, is your familiarity with 21st century technologies. Apparently others in city government and staff do not see the value I see in your perspective and opinions in your field, and that is troubling to me as a tax payer.

They have an expert on council and they refuse to listen to him.


"If only we had somebody familiar with sensitive data and databases, and had some expertise in this area to help us out. Little Timmy in the maintenance shop at veterans is pretty good at call of duty but I think he's out sick, maybe that guy who does the radios in the CSU trucks? Other than that who knows. We'll just do what staff and the chief say to do"

---

I'm not an expert in ALPR but I researched a lot. I mean a lot. I do have business acumen though- I retired at 49 and for some reason can't stop volunteering. ;-)

But it doesn't take much business acumen to see that Flock is in trouble financially, legally, legislatively and with the public. They threw privacy aside, and now are paying the price.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Bob Yancy said:

---

I'm not an expert in ALPR but I researched a lot. I mean a lot.

---

-And that's what we should expect from elected officials. Not simply rubber stamping everything without careful informed considerations.

zigag09 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

The CS police chief could not answer basic questions about the Flock system.

It is also interesting how only the two council members running for office voted against the Flock contract.

---

easy to vote no when you know its gonna pass no matte what

---

For what it's worth, I walked out disappointed. I thought I'd made a compelling case that Flock was toxic, that our renewal wouldn't save it, and the legal, regulatory, legislative and public sentiment risk wasn't worth it.

We were given another binary choice- yet again. Flock, or nothing. The truth is, there are viable options that offer privacy-enhanced local controls and storage of data, local control of outside access to that data, restrictions on retrospective queries, integration with existing bodycam and vehicular systems, less administrative burden on our officers, automated one click ORR production when you guys make an open records request- and a potentially ready-made solution that would likely be compliant with pending legislation. And that option doesn't have hundreds of lawsuits.

Now we own this for another year, with the negative hail storm that will continue with it- with each breaking story and it'll be a cascade.

I tried my best. I failed. But I did not walk in there certain of the outcome.

For what it's worth, I predict we will not reach the end of the new contract term.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Could you clarify which viable options you are considering or investigating?

---

Axon. A company we already use extensively that you guys never complained about before, that has a pretty clean legal record, and one that cities are increasingly switching to. The company was created in a law enforcement ecosystem with strict privacy controls and local data hosting. I think it would've been a uniquely College Station solution.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

EliteElectric said:

---

Yancy I appreciate your efforts. What is mind boggling to me, is that you, a man who made a pretty good living in data and software (medical, HIPPA etc) didn't get the full weight of your expertise past the thick skulls in City government. One of the things that make you a good candidate, in my opinion, is your familiarity with 21st century technologies. Apparently others in city government and staff do not see the value I see in your perspective and opinions in your field, and that is troubling to me as a tax payer.

They have an expert on council and they refuse to listen to him.


"If only we had somebody familiar with sensitive data and databases, and had some expertise in this area to help us out. Little Timmy in the maintenance shop at veterans is pretty good at call of duty but I think he's out sick, maybe that guy who does the radios in the CSU trucks? Other than that who knows. We'll just do what staff and the chief say to do"

---

This. Bob is way more up to date on modern business practices and security than other folks, just due to the nature of his company, and the HIPPA regulations they had to deal with. I would imagine he consulted with several other folks who are even more expert on those points in his research.

Other folks voting last night, not so much. Wright telling everyone there that they did not represent the citizens of CS was just mind-blowing. But, not out of character for him.

Bob Yancy said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

The CS police chief could not answer basic questions about the Flock system.

It is also interesting how only the two council members running for office voted against the Flock contract.

---

easy to vote no when you know its gonna pass no matte what

---

For what it's worth, I walked out disappointed. I thought I'd made a compelling case that Flock was toxic, that our renewal wouldn't save it, and the legal, regulatory, legislative and public sentiment risk wasn't worth it.

We were given another binary choice- yet again. Flock, or nothing. The truth is, there are viable options that offer privacy-enhanced local controls and storage of data, local control of outside access to that data, restrictions on retrospective queries, integration with existing bodycam and vehicular systems, less administrative burden on our officers, automated one click ORR production when you guys make an open records request- and a potentially ready-made solution that would likely be compliant with pending legislation. And that option doesn't have hundreds of lawsuits.

Now we own this for another year, with the negative hail storm that will continue with it- with each breaking story and it'll be a cascade.

I tried my best. I failed. But I did not walk in there certain of the outcome.

For what it's worth, I predict we will not reach the end of the new contract term.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Could you clarify which viable options you are considering or investigating?

---

Axon. A company we already use extensively that you guys never complained about before, that has a pretty clean legal record, and one that cities are increasingly switching to. The company was created in a law enforcement ecosystem with strict privacy controls and local data hosting. I think it would've been a uniquely College Station solution.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Axon has major issues with their "ALPR" system too.

https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/08/ALPR-vendor-chart-1.png
Flock enforces tighter default guardrails for data deletion. Axon does not impose mandatory data-retention limits. Axon defaults to a 30-day window but permits police departments to permanently retain vehicle tracking data for as long as they want.
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/other-alpr-vendors

Axon's own AI Ethics Board, "an independent advisory board created in 2018 to advise Axon Enterprise, Inc. on ethical issues relating to its development or deployment of new artificial intelligence (AI)-powered policing technologies," identified major security concerns and privacy concerns that have still not been addressed.

Quote:

---

The Board sees the potential value in ALPRs, but we also find the current state of affairs deeply concerning. Law enforcement and private actors vacuum up plate data across the country creating databases of billions of scans, too often available to anyone willing to pay. These scans are sometimes used to enforce civil infractions, collect fines and fees, or even pursue purely private profits. There is evidence this enforcement falls disproportionately on low-income individuals and communities of color, and much of this occurs out of the view of the public and with minimal democratic input. As the purchasing costs of ALPR technology drop, it only will become more widely available and more powerful.

---

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58a33e881b631bc60d4f8b31/t/5dadec937f5c1a2b9d698ba9/1571679380452/Axon_Ethics_Report_2_v2.pdf

Bob Yancy said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

The CS police chief could not answer basic questions about the Flock system.

It is also interesting how only the two council members running for office voted against the Flock contract.

---

easy to vote no when you know its gonna pass no matte what

---

For what it's worth, I walked out disappointed. I thought I'd made a compelling case that Flock was toxic, that our renewal wouldn't save it, and the legal, regulatory, legislative and public sentiment risk wasn't worth it.

We were given another binary choice- yet again. Flock, or nothing. The truth is, there are viable options that offer privacy-enhanced local controls and storage of data, local control of outside access to that data, restrictions on retrospective queries, integration with existing bodycam and vehicular systems, less administrative burden on our officers, automated one click ORR production when you guys make an open records request- and a potentially ready-made solution that would likely be compliant with pending legislation. And that option doesn't have hundreds of lawsuits.

Now we own this for another year, with the negative hail storm that will continue with it- with each breaking story and it'll be a cascade.

I tried my best. I failed. But I did not walk in there certain of the outcome.

For what it's worth, I predict we will not reach the end of the new contract term.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Could you clarify which viable options you are considering or investigating?

---

Axon. A company we already use extensively that you guys never complained about before, that has a pretty clean legal record, and one that cities are increasingly switching to. The company was created in a law enforcement ecosystem with strict privacy controls and local data hosting. I think it would've been a uniquely College Station solution.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Axon has major issues with their "ALPR" system too.

https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/08/ALPR-vendor-chart-1.png
Flock enforces tighter default guardrails for data deletion. Axon does not impose mandatory data-retention limits. Axon defaults to a 30-day window but permits police departments to permanently retain vehicle tracking data for as long as they want.
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/other-alpr-vendors

Axon's own AI Ethics Board, "an independent advisory board created in 2018 to advise Axon Enterprise, Inc. on ethical issues relating to its development or deployment of new artificial intelligence (AI)-powered policing technologies," identified major security concerns and privacy concerns that have still not been addressed.

Quote:

---

The Board sees the potential value in ALPRs, but we also find the current state of affairs deeply concerning. Law enforcement and private actors vacuum up plate data across the country creating databases of billions of scans, too often available to anyone willing to pay. These scans are sometimes used to enforce civil infractions, collect fines and fees, or even pursue purely private profits. There is evidence this enforcement falls disproportionately on low-income individuals and communities of color, and much of this occurs out of the view of the public and with minimal democratic input. As the purchasing costs of ALPR technology drop, it only will become more widely available and more powerful.

---

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58a33e881b631bc60d4f8b31/t/5dadec937f5c1a2b9d698ba9/1571679380452/Axon_Ethics_Report_2_v2.pdf

---

Your first link is ACLU. So there's that. Your second is Axon, back in 2018, seating an AI commission to get it right. That was 8 years ago.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

That is a very dismissive response that does not convey respect, IMHO.

What is wrong with the American Civil Liberties Union as a source? Do you have sources that contradict their findings?

Axon's AI Ethics Board came out with the report in October 2019 (7 years ago) and their concerns have not been addressed and are still a concern to this day.

As a voting citizen of College Station, I expect a councilmember and potential Mayor to be more thoughtful with his responses and receptive to the concerns of his constituency, even if he does not believe in them.

I'll answer for him - the ACLU is a corrupt organization that has abandoned their original ideals to lay at the feet of uber-progressive socialists.

They. Can't. Be. Trusted. As. A. Source.

I second what tu ag is saying. I wouldn't trust the ACLU fo anything in this world.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Yancy I appreciate your efforts. What is mind boggling to me, is that you, a man who made a pretty good living in data and software (medical, HIPPA etc) didn't get the full weight of your expertise past the thick skulls in City government. One of the things that make you a good candidate, in my opinion, is your familiarity with 21st century technologies. Apparently others in city government and staff do not see the value I see in your perspective and opinions in your field, and that is troubling to me as a tax payer.

They have an expert on council and they refuse to listen to him.


"If only we had somebody familiar with sensitive data and databases, and had some expertise in this area to help us out. Little Timmy in the maintenance shop at veterans is pretty good at call of duty but I think he's out sick, maybe that guy who does the radios in the CSU trucks? Other than that who knows. We'll just do what staff and the chief say to do"

---

This. Bob is way more up to date on modern business practices and security than other folks, just due to the nature of his company, and the HIPPA regulations they had to deal with. I would imagine he consulted with several other folks who are even more expert on those points in his research.

Other folks voting last night, not so much. Wright telling everyone there that they did not represent the citizens of CS was just mind-blowing. But, not out of character for him.

---

Didn't he first support the data center?

---

From conversations, and his posts on here, that answer is No.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Yancy I appreciate your efforts. What is mind boggling to me, is that you, a man who made a pretty good living in data and software (medical, HIPPA etc) didn't get the full weight of your expertise past the thick skulls in City government. One of the things that make you a good candidate, in my opinion, is your familiarity with 21st century technologies. Apparently others in city government and staff do not see the value I see in your perspective and opinions in your field, and that is troubling to me as a tax payer.

They have an expert on council and they refuse to listen to him.


"If only we had somebody familiar with sensitive data and databases, and had some expertise in this area to help us out. Little Timmy in the maintenance shop at veterans is pretty good at call of duty but I think he's out sick, maybe that guy who does the radios in the CSU trucks? Other than that who knows. We'll just do what staff and the chief say to do"

---

This. Bob is way more up to date on modern business practices and security than other folks, just due to the nature of his company, and the HIPPA regulations they had to deal with. I would imagine he consulted with several other folks who are even more expert on those points in his research.

Other folks voting last night, not so much. Wright telling everyone there that they did not represent the citizens of CS was just mind-blowing. But, not out of character for him.

---

Didn't he first support the data center?

---

No ma'am.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

Bob Yancy said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

The CS police chief could not answer basic questions about the Flock system.

It is also interesting how only the two council members running for office voted against the Flock contract.

---

easy to vote no when you know its gonna pass no matte what

---

For what it's worth, I walked out disappointed. I thought I'd made a compelling case that Flock was toxic, that our renewal wouldn't save it, and the legal, regulatory, legislative and public sentiment risk wasn't worth it.

We were given another binary choice- yet again. Flock, or nothing. The truth is, there are viable options that offer privacy-enhanced local controls and storage of data, local control of outside access to that data, restrictions on retrospective queries, integration with existing bodycam and vehicular systems, less administrative burden on our officers, automated one click ORR production when you guys make an open records request- and a potentially ready-made solution that would likely be compliant with pending legislation. And that option doesn't have hundreds of lawsuits.

Now we own this for another year, with the negative hail storm that will continue with it- with each breaking story and it'll be a cascade.

I tried my best. I failed. But I did not walk in there certain of the outcome.

For what it's worth, I predict we will not reach the end of the new contract term.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

I see last night as a necessary step forward in a process, the beginning of a real conversation about what responsible ALPR could look like, and if such a thing exists at all.

Flock, the company, unquestionably lost last night. Not one member of council expressed comfort with the status quo. You presented the only viable alternative, but the reality is that a council meeting, especially one where the renewal vote is already on the agenda, is simply too late to bring unfamiliar members up to speed on Axon's offerings. That challenge was compounded by the sensationalist claims that the city would be "overrun with crime" the moment the Flock cameras were turned off and the Chief saying that no viable alternatives exist.

What was nearly universal, though, was council's acknowledgment that guardrails are needed. While guardrails won't and can't solve every issue with Flock, as you rightly pointed out, robust guardrails would significantly improve our current situation. Given last night's outcome, they're the minimum responsible step forward.

With guardrails in place, I believe the next 12 months can be used to seriously evaluate and pursue alternatives that address most, if not all, citizen concerns, or to determine that no workable ALPR exists. Either outcome leads to a far clearer, easier vote next September, assuming Flock still exists at that time.

Unless we do nothing.
And if we do nothing, then I'd say we deserve what we get.

I like your post, however I don't think anyone of the council members thinks it's their job to monitor flock cameras pros and cons nor implement a monitoring system in college station. I highly doubt more than 2 council members did any research as most listened to the scare tactics of the police.
The only people that will monitor is the police and you know what you will get from that. the public will be shut out from the process once again.

Last year was the year they should've monitored it when they signed it in the dark of night………

My question is why doesn't the public get a vote on these kind of issues?

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

I'm talking about Wright?

---

Ahhh. Yes. My impression was that he was 100% for the datacenter. At least the conversation I had gave me that impression.

Bob, no. He was always against it was my impression in conversation with him. I'll admit, we didn't see eye to eye on some things, we still don't. But I respect the work he puts in, and he's always willing to listen.

I get the sense that in our city council, we have leaders, and followers. Bob is a leader. Wright is definitely a follower.

Wright will vote however the city manager tells him to vote, regardless of the will and best interest of the people he was elected to represent.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

Wright will vote however the city manager tells him to vote, regardless of the will and best interest of the people he was elected to represent.

---

I think there's several of those.

I think the cameras are an overreach on our personal freedoms, but if they are allowed for the next year, we need to have a yes/no vote on them in the first 2027 voting day. Let the citizens make the decision on whether we have them or not and how managed. To me the vote should be on the following.

Do you agree with the public use of flock cameras in our city? Y/N

Should access to the camera data be only by law enforcement officials? Y/N

Should the data only be saved for 10 days? Y/N

Should a court order be required to access the data? Y/N

Proven abuse of the flock camera data comes with a non-negotiable 6-month jail sentence with no early release. Y/N.