Why would anyone believe the government?

BCSWguru said:

---

Why would anyone believe the government?

---

Only reason I can come up with is because they are foolish,

woodiewood1 said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Agreed. Theres a massive difference with me understanding the privacy risks of going out in public vs. having my behavior tracked, analyzed, and sold.

---

Are the cameras on public property analyzing and selling my traveling?

---

Reminder: your phone already does so.

I think this argument misses the point. Yes, our phones and every site we visit (including this one) track us and sell our data to the highest bidder. But we opt into that, can utilize different browsers, VPNs, and other tools to limit it to some extent, and at the end of the day we can just not use smart phones or social media.

This is fundamentally different. I didn't opt into Flock cameras tracking my movement and I can't just opt out by never going anywhere.

Place 5 on Flock

I want to share this directly rather than let my position be characterized by others.

I was the first Council member to identify the specific structural problems in the Flock contract's terms. The "Permitted Purpose" clause authorizes uses well beyond vehicle theft. The City grants Flock an irrevocable worldwide license over our data. Flock holds a perpetual license to anonymized derivatives that the City cannot opt out of. Third-party data distribution permits retention beyond the 30-day window citizen bosses have been told exists. And one clause lets Flock disclose City data at its own good-faith discretion, without City approval or notification. I know this contract cold.

I've raised those concerns at two Council meetings including when the grant application came before us, and again at this month's workshop. The public record reflects that, and I stand by a plain viewing of my pointed questions in both meeting videos.

I want to be straight with the bosses.

Chief Couch, CSPD and non-sworn senior staff have made a serious case for the operational value of the program. There is no evidence of local abuse. Baytown is not College Station. I know our cops. I know our program. There are documented cases where the technology has- inarguably- helped stop those who had done harm to others, and in one case helped stop a potential mass shooting at a high profile location here in town. The suspect was apprehended with two loaded weapons in his vehicle allegedly on his way to do additional harm beyond what he'd allegedly already done. Those facts matter, and I take them seriously.

Nationally, the picture is different. The Supreme Court's Chatrie ruling on June 29 weakened one of the primary legal supports for ALPR networks. Federal courts are actively litigating whether these systems require warrants. Cities across the country, including Austin, San Marcos, and Bandera here in Texas, have chosen to cancel or not renew their contracts. Congressman Massie (Kentucky) is developing bipartisan federal legislation to yank city funding for any municipal govt using it. The environment is shifting quickly, and I'm hearing the bosses loud and clear- but I've also heard from 3 citizen bosses now who's family received justice and/or had their property recovered and they attribute Flock as the tool our cops used. So it's not just PD who I'm listening to with a keen ear- it's also victims themselves.

Given that combination, my position is this: I am not prepared, at this time, to end a program that CSPD credibly proves is helping solve crimes based on hypothetical future data abuses. I am also not prepared to defend the program on autopilot when the legal and political ground under it is moving. What I am prepared to do is monitor closely, insist on meaningful safeguards, engage seriously when the contract comes up for renewal, and be honest with citizen bosses about what I know and what I do not.

If credible evidence of local abuse emerges, I will act. If federal or state legislation changes the legal landscape, we will comply. If Council can build a governance package that adds meaningful accountability without eliminating operational value (beyond the two officer authentication we've already enacted) I will support it. If the environment shifts to a point where continued use cannot be justified, I will say so.

Reasonable people can disagree on where the balance sits today. I respect the citizen bosses on both sides who have engaged on this in good faith. My job is to keep reading the contract, watching the courts, listening to the folks I represent, and making the best decision I can at each moment a decision is required- even if that means some people are unhappy with me. That's the job, guys. That is what I have been doing, and it is what I will continue to do.

Respectfully and as transparently as humanly possible,

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

That's reasonable in my opinion. I just ask that if there is abuse found, it will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Got to kick some of these folks in the butt that try to always push the limits beyond what is acceptable.

I disagree with the discussion about data. And it's not a subtle difference.

It is referred to as "our data". How is "our data" protected, sold, etc.

It's NOT our data. It is Flock's data. College Station pays to access the Flock data. It's an important distinction.

birdman said:

---

I disagree with the discussion about data. And it's not a subtle difference.

It is referred to as "our data". How is "our data" protected, sold, etc.

It's NOT our data. It is Flock's data. College Station pays to access the Flock data. It's an important distinction.

---

You're right and you're wrong. One can be forgiven though as it's a cagey contract.

SECTION 4.1 CUSTOMER DATA

"As between Flock and Customer, all right, title and interest in the Customer Data, belong to and are retained solely by the customer."

Next sentence:

"Customer hereby grants to Flock a limited, non-exclusive, royalty- free, irrevocable, worldwide license to use the Customer Data and perform all acts as may be necessary for Flock… "

It's like saying "you own this land, but I get to use it for my purposes and build what I want on it.

Respectfully

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

"I am not sure I see a huge concern. I guess since I have no intentions of committing crimes, then I don't really care if I am being watched."

That's how it always starts ….

"Reminder: your phone already does so."

Not if I turn it off, right?

Bob Yancy said:

---

"As between Flock and Customer, all right, title and interest in the Customer Data, belong to and are retained solely by the customer."

---

I bet the next sentence is "for as long as customer (College Station) pays for access to client (Flock)".

If College Station truly owned the data, they could stop the contract and retain the data.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Place 5 on Flock

***snip***

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

---

Gonna have to respectfully disagree on this one Bob. Most of our largest governmental overreaches have come with "safety" or "children" or some other emotional construct as it's warhead (See Fauci). There is little to no evidence that those crimes solved "faster" with surveillance would have not been solved without it. Now one would have us believe that the misuse is happening all over the country with this data, but our guys are different? Our guys wouldn't do that right?

"Hey buddy, do you like liver? No I hate the taste of it! Well you just haven't had it the way I cook it."

That's simultaneously incredibly arrogant and short sighted in my opinion.

Government spying on it's citizens is a slippery slope I don't think anyone looking for votes should ski on.

Just my 2c

EliteElectric said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Place 5 on Flock

***snip***

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

---

Gonna have to respectfully disagree on this one Bob. Most of our largest governmental overreaches have come with "safety" or "children" or some other emotional construct as it's warhead (See Fauci). There is little to no evidence that those crimes solved "faster" with surveillance would have not been solved without it. Now one would have us believe that the misuse is happening all over the country with this data, but our guys are different? Our guys wouldn't do that right?

"Hey buddy, do you like liver? No I hate the taste of it! Well you just haven't had it the way I cook it."

That's simultaneously incredibly arrogant and short sighted in my opinion.

Government spying on it's citizens is a slippery slope I don't think anyone looking for votes should ski on.

Just my 2c

---

Fair enough, Elite. Fair enough.

Respectfully

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

EliteElectric said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Place 5 on Flock

***snip***

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

---

Gonna have to respectfully disagree on this one Bob. Most of our largest governmental overreaches have come with "safety" or "children" or some other emotional construct as it's warhead (See Fauci). There is little to no evidence that those crimes solved "faster" with surveillance would have not been solved without it. Now one would have us believe that the misuse is happening all over the country with this data, but our guys are different? Our guys wouldn't do that right?

"Hey buddy, do you like liver? No I hate the taste of it! Well you just haven't had it the way I cook it."

That's simultaneously incredibly arrogant and short sighted in my opinion.

Government spying on it's citizens is a slippery slope I don't think anyone looking for votes should ski on.

Just my 2c

---

"Our guys" could sit on their hands and never run a query at all, but our coming and going could be tracked (abused) by Flock employees or any of the agencies in Texas that the data is shared to (or other agencies as situations evolve as stated at the city council meeting). It's available to more than "our guys."

Bob Yancy said:

---

Place 5 on Flock

I want to share this directly rather than let my position be characterized by others.

I was the first Council member to identify the specific structural problems in the Flock contract's terms. The "Permitted Purpose" clause authorizes uses well beyond vehicle theft. The City grants Flock an irrevocable worldwide license over our data. Flock holds a perpetual license to anonymized derivatives that the City cannot opt out of. Third-party data distribution permits retention beyond the 30-day window citizen bosses have been told exists. And one clause lets Flock disclose City data at its own good-faith discretion, without City approval or notification. I know this contract cold.

I've raised those concerns at two Council meetings including when the grant application came before us, and again at this month's workshop. The public record reflects that, and I stand by a plain viewing of my pointed questions in both meeting videos.

I want to be straight with the bosses.

Chief Couch, CSPD and non-sworn senior staff have made a serious case for the operational value of the program. There is no evidence of local abuse. Baytown is not College Station. I know our cops. I know our program. There are documented cases where the technology has- inarguably- helped stop those who had done harm to others, and in one case helped stop a potential mass shooting at a high profile location here in town. The suspect was apprehended with two loaded weapons in his vehicle allegedly on his way to do additional harm beyond what he'd allegedly already done. Those facts matter, and I take them seriously.

Nationally, the picture is different. The Supreme Court's Chatrie ruling on June 29 weakened one of the primary legal supports for ALPR networks. Federal courts are actively litigating whether these systems require warrants. Cities across the country, including Austin, San Marcos, and Bandera here in Texas, have chosen to cancel or not renew their contracts. Congressman Massie (Kentucky) is developing bipartisan federal legislation to yank city funding for any municipal govt using it. The environment is shifting quickly, and I'm hearing the bosses loud and clear- but I've also heard from 3 citizen bosses now who's family received justice and/or had their property recovered and they attribute Flock as the tool our cops used. So it's not just PD who I'm listening to with a keen ear- it's also victims themselves.

Given that combination, my position is this: I am not prepared, at this time, to end a program that CSPD credibly proves is helping solve crimes based on hypothetical future data abuses. I am also not prepared to defend the program on autopilot when the legal and political ground under it is moving. What I am prepared to do is monitor closely, insist on meaningful safeguards, engage seriously when the contract comes up for renewal, and be honest with citizen bosses about what I know and what I do not.

If credible evidence of local abuse emerges, I will act. If federal or state legislation changes the legal landscape, we will comply. If Council can build a governance package that adds meaningful accountability without eliminating operational value (beyond the two officer authentication we've already enacted) I will support it. If the environment shifts to a point where continued use cannot be justified, I will say so.

Reasonable people can disagree on where the balance sits today. I respect the citizen bosses on both sides who have engaged on this in good faith. My job is to keep reading the contract, watching the courts, listening to the folks I represent, and making the best decision I can at each moment a decision is required- even if that means some people are unhappy with me. That's the job, guys. That is what I have been doing, and it is what I will continue to do.

Respectfully and as transparently as humanly possible,

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

---

So if I am hearing you correctly Bob, your position is that we are stuck with this until you can get a whiff of any improprieties being done with it because you know it won't be used for any wrong thing by our police or flock? And if something does come to light you will be on it quickly?

how would we as your bosses, the people, as you like to say, know if any improprieties happen as they will all take place behind the iron curtain of government? These decisions imposed on the people in the last couple of years are very progressive in nature and it always seemed that the government was working and continues to work against the people as a whole. (Data centers, flock cameras, multiple screw up of funds going to bad projects and don't forget Macys).

The few crimes it has solved vs the masses of people that that are being surveilled (and data captured) on a daily basis is insane. Will this thing cause my insurance rates to go down since every crime will be solved? Will the next step be to have these machines write tickets and send them to our homes?

why does city council keep acting on these things to the people and it's always too late for the people to ask about them?

it seems like we are not the boss after all and living in the city council and city managers world.

Edit to add - how about we wait and see what the people want and what the rest of the world is going through before city council acts on the next one for once? Then you would be working for the people.

whoop1995 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Place 5 on Flock

I want to share this directly rather than let my position be characterized by others.

I was the first Council member to identify the specific structural problems in the Flock contract's terms. The "Permitted Purpose" clause authorizes uses well beyond vehicle theft. The City grants Flock an irrevocable worldwide license over our data. Flock holds a perpetual license to anonymized derivatives that the City cannot opt out of. Third-party data distribution permits retention beyond the 30-day window citizen bosses have been told exists. And one clause lets Flock disclose City data at its own good-faith discretion, without City approval or notification. I know this contract cold.

I've raised those concerns at two Council meetings including when the grant application came before us, and again at this month's workshop. The public record reflects that, and I stand by a plain viewing of my pointed questions in both meeting videos.

I want to be straight with the bosses.

Chief Couch, CSPD and non-sworn senior staff have made a serious case for the operational value of the program. There is no evidence of local abuse. Baytown is not College Station. I know our cops. I know our program. There are documented cases where the technology has- inarguably- helped stop those who had done harm to others, and in one case helped stop a potential mass shooting at a high profile location here in town. The suspect was apprehended with two loaded weapons in his vehicle allegedly on his way to do additional harm beyond what he'd allegedly already done. Those facts matter, and I take them seriously.

Nationally, the picture is different. The Supreme Court's Chatrie ruling on June 29 weakened one of the primary legal supports for ALPR networks. Federal courts are actively litigating whether these systems require warrants. Cities across the country, including Austin, San Marcos, and Bandera here in Texas, have chosen to cancel or not renew their contracts. Congressman Massie (Kentucky) is developing bipartisan federal legislation to yank city funding for any municipal govt using it. The environment is shifting quickly, and I'm hearing the bosses loud and clear- but I've also heard from 3 citizen bosses now who's family received justice and/or had their property recovered and they attribute Flock as the tool our cops used. So it's not just PD who I'm listening to with a keen ear- it's also victims themselves.

Given that combination, my position is this: I am not prepared, at this time, to end a program that CSPD credibly proves is helping solve crimes based on hypothetical future data abuses. I am also not prepared to defend the program on autopilot when the legal and political ground under it is moving. What I am prepared to do is monitor closely, insist on meaningful safeguards, engage seriously when the contract comes up for renewal, and be honest with citizen bosses about what I know and what I do not.

If credible evidence of local abuse emerges, I will act. If federal or state legislation changes the legal landscape, we will comply. If Council can build a governance package that adds meaningful accountability without eliminating operational value (beyond the two officer authentication we've already enacted) I will support it. If the environment shifts to a point where continued use cannot be justified, I will say so.

Reasonable people can disagree on where the balance sits today. I respect the citizen bosses on both sides who have engaged on this in good faith. My job is to keep reading the contract, watching the courts, listening to the folks I represent, and making the best decision I can at each moment a decision is required- even if that means some people are unhappy with me. That's the job, guys. That is what I have been doing, and it is what I will continue to do.

Respectfully and as transparently as humanly possible,

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

---

So if I am hearing you correctly Bob, your position is that we are stuck with this until you can get a whiff of any improprieties being done with it because you know it won't be used for any wrong thing by our police or flock? And if something does come to light you will be on it quickly?

how would we as your bosses, the people, as you like to say, know if any improprieties happen as they will all take place behind the iron curtain of government? These decisions imposed on the people in the last couple of years are very progressive in nature and it always seemed that the government was working and continues to work against the people as a whole. (Data centers, flock cameras, multiple screw up of funds going to bad projects and don't forget Macys).

The few crimes it has solved vs the masses of people that that are being surveilled (and data captured) on a daily basis is insane. Will this thing cause my insurance rates to go down since every crime will be solved? Will the next step be to have these machines write tickets and send them to our homes?

why does city council keep acting on these things to the people and it's always too late for the people to ask about them?

it seems like we are not the boss after all and living in the city council and city managers world.

---

I think it's fair to an extent to feel that way in general and that's a large part of why I'm running. When citizen bosses go into the voting booth, you're not voting for someone to represent the best interests of city hall. You're voting for someone to represent your interests, and that of your family. Fortunately, most times those goals overlap- but not always. To at least a small extent, and to some quite a bit, we lost our way on some things over the years and city hall fell out of touch a bit with the citizens we serve. My campaign was born of a desire to fix that.

But Flock isn't Macys, or Rosemary, or Northgate, or the Data Center or Pebble Creek Parkway or a myriad of less visible issues these past years.

With Flock, I have a bunch of guys and gals that put on the uniform before shift and buckle up the gear telling me it'll make y'all safer. That it'll take bad guys off the streets. And not just that it will, but that it HAS.

Public safety has to be number 1, period. That's city hall's raison d'tre. It's reason for being. There's nothing in this world easier than bowing to the crowd- be that crowd in an executive session boardroom, in the four walls of city hall, or in council chambers every other Thursday night when yall get the pitchforks out. But sometimes you have to take a stand and right now I'm standing with public safety on this one.

When those guys drove all over Austin shooting the city up and drove 10 miles and did it again, then again, then again earlier this year, it was ALPR that did them in and stopped the violence.

Some decisions are hard. This is one of them.

I'm sorry if my answer disappoints. This is where I'm at.

Respectfully & transparently as I can be,

Yancy '95

Wow - yeah pretty transparent Bob - so much for the people in college station and their privacy for some gangbangers in Austin - by the way Austin cancelled their city contracts over civil liberty and data sharing privacy concerns which we citizens have here in college station but damn the torpedos full steam ahead! Maybe you will prevail and maybe you won't.

Austin still has TexDot cameras up but Austin doesnt control those.

Bob Yancy said:

---

With Flock, I have a bunch of guys and gals that put on the uniform before shift and buckle up the gear telling me it'll make y'all safer. That it'll take bad guys off the streets. And not just that it will, but that it HAS.

Like I said in my other comment we have to trust and believe that our guys are different than those around the country, and that's not a bridge I am prepared to cross. Not shocking that a person wants tools that make their jobs easier, but it comes at an erosion of civil liberties and rights of individuals who have done nothing to deserve that erosion


When those guys drove all over Austin shooting the city up and drove 10 miles and did it again, then again, then again earlier this year, it was ALPR that did them in and stopped the violence.

So because of this once in a generation event we all need to be surveilled without warrant?

---

This one we will have to simply disagree on.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

I'm just here to say that I support public surveillance cameras if law enforcement authorities say it helps reduce and solve crimes.

No way I would support public surveillance of private activities, but when you're in public, you're not private. Everybody can see you. Random citizens have the right to film you in public without your permission as long as they're not harassing you and getting right in your face.

The good guys and gals in law enforcement should have similar tools. Any of them that violate the trust we place in them should be punished severely and made an example for others.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Public safety has to be number 1, period. That's city hall's raison d'tre. It's reason for being. There's nothing in this world easier than bowing to the crowd- be that crowd in an executive session boardroom, in the four walls of city hall, or in council chambers every other Thursday night when yall get the pitchforks out. But sometimes you have to take a stand and right now I'm standing with public safety on this one.

I'm sorry if my answer disappoints. This is where I'm at.

Respectfully & transparently as I can be,

Yancy '95

---

I disagree. Doing things the right way HAS TO BE number 1. Operating with an "it's for the greater good" mindset will lead us astray. There will be people in the future that use your actions of today as justification for their actions. And they may not be as virtuous. The end never justifies the means.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I'm just here to say that I support public surveillance cameras if law enforcement authorities say it helps reduce and solve crimes.

No way I would support public surveillance of private activities, but when you're in public, you're not private. Everybody can see you. Random citizens have the right to film you in public without your permission as long as they're not harassing you and getting right in your face.

The good guys and gals in law enforcement should have similar tools. Any of them that violate the trust we place in them should be punished severely and made an example for others.

---

Give me one single instance where a flock camera has prevented a crime, or made anyone/anywhere "safer". The cameras serve exactly one purpose: to record wherever/whomever passes by.

Random people can record anyone in public, as stated. The difference being this: it would take one person per Flock camera, and all of them working together, to capture and collate the data recorded.

Rexter said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I'm just here to say that I support public surveillance cameras if law enforcement authorities say it helps reduce and solve crimes.

No way I would support public surveillance of private activities, but when you're in public, you're not private. Everybody can see you. Random citizens have the right to film you in public without your permission as long as they're not harassing you and getting right in your face.

The good guys and gals in law enforcement should have similar tools. Any of them that violate the trust we place in them should be punished severely and made an example for others.

---

Give me one single instance where a flock camera has prevented a crime, or made anyone/anywhere "safer". The cameras serve exactly one purpose: to record wherever/whomever passes by.

Random people can record anyone in public, as stated. The difference being this: it would take one person per Flock camera, and all of them working together, to capture and collate the data recorded.

---

Having been the victim of a crime, I care much more about preventing crime if possible or catching criminals after a crime to prevent more of it, than I care about the boogey-man filming me in public and doing something bad with it. And I don't have to prove anything to anybody for why I support this.

Like I said, if they betray the trust, then hold them accountable, but don't tie the hands of the good guys who are trying to protect us from the bad guys. No sir.

whoop1995 said:

---

Wow - yeah pretty transparent Bob - so much for the people in college station and their privacy for some gangbangers in Austin - by the way Austin cancelled their city contracts over civil liberty and data sharing privacy concerns which we citizens have here in college station but damn the torpedos full steam ahead! Maybe you will prevail and maybe you won't.

Austin still has TexDot cameras up but Austin doesnt control those.

---

Austin didn't cancel their contracts over "civil liberty".

They cancelled them cause Trump is deporting illegals...

Gator92 said:

---

whoop1995 said:

---

Wow - yeah pretty transparent Bob - so much for the people in college station and their privacy for some gangbangers in Austin - by the way Austin cancelled their city contracts over civil liberty and data sharing privacy concerns which we citizens have here in college station but damn the torpedos full steam ahead! Maybe you will prevail and maybe you won't.

Austin still has TexDot cameras up but Austin doesnt control those.

---

Austin didn't cancel their contracts over "civil liberty".

They cancelled them cause Trump is deporting illegals...

---

It's interesting that both sides of the political isle seem to be against them. The potential for politically motivated abuse, is huge. Probably the largest risk actually. Could be used to target candidates or political rivals, persecute protesters, etc. How would you feel about attending a political protest if you knew the group you were protesting against would be collecting your personal information before you even stepped out of the car?

The whole mess is unamerican and goes against everything this country was founded on. This isn't London or Beijing.