MidRatsAg said:

---

In Roseville, CA, Flock misread license plates in 71% of the alerts it sent to police: https://www.businessinsider.com/flock-camera-misread-license-plate-reader-california-roseville-police-2026-7

---

If you read the article the cameras in Roseville, California specifically are positioned in weird ways to only try to see the backs of vehicles. Literally an "installed wrong, doesn't work properly" issue.

MidRatsAg said:

---

I did read the article and still found it relevant for this discussion. Thanks.

---

Well, I'm just playing the role of "Readers added context they thought people might want to know" like on X.

Oh, fair enough. I never got into X/Twitter so I have no idea how all of that works. Thought it was a direct reply to me. Have a great weekend!

CS78 said:

---

Was just doing a little digging. KBTX reported in March that there were 30 cameras in Brazos County. People expressed concerns at that time. Four months later, that number exploded to 75+ in College Station alone.

With such a sensitive subject, why wasnt this brought up for public comment? In four months, they implemented a full-scale, government operated, surveillance system of College Station residents. How is this acceptable?



Wouldn't something like this be better decided by the people?

If Bob Yancy, Valen Cepak, or any other CSTX candidates are reading this, I would like to know if you would support allowing the residents to vote on keeping or rejecting this system?

To be clear, I'm not asking if you do or don't support the system. I'm asking if you do or dont support the citizens making that decision. If you would not support allowing the voters to decide, please tell us why not?

---

Yes. I would support such a measure given the public safety considerations and the controversy surrounding it. Council could put it on the ballot or the citizens could via petition, albeit I think we're inside the ballot measure window for the November election.

I support deferring to the citizens more in general for bond issuances, tax measures and other initiatives. I don't see a reason why fixed ALPRs couldn't apply.

I have not researched this issue- I'm merely answering your question. My campaign, and my leadership style should I be elected, will be firmly predicated on citizen engagement.

I hope that's responsive to your question.

Respectfully

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

Bob Yancy said:

---

Yes. I would support such a measure given the public safety considerations and the controversy surrounding it. Council could put it on the ballot or the citizens could via petition, albeit I think we're inside the ballot measure window for the November election.

I support deferring to the citizens more in general for bond issuances, tax measures and other initiatives. I don't see a reason why fixed ALPRs couldn't apply.

I have not researched this issue- I'm merely answering your question. My campaign, and my leadership style should I be elected, will be firmly predicated on citizen engagement.

I hope that's responsive to your question.

Respectfully

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

---

Thanks a bunch! What is the process for council to put it on the ballot?

I have a habit of flipping off the various cameras around town through my windshield (insert Costanza's "is that wrong" gif...). I presume this is why my stoplight karma blows chunks. They know me.

CS78 said:

---

If Bob Yancy, Valen Cepak, or any other CSTX candidates are reading this, I would like to know if you would support allowing the residents to vote on keeping or rejecting this system?

To be clear, I'm not asking if you do or don't support the system. I'm asking if you do or dont support the citizens making that decision. If you would not support allowing the voters to decide, please tell us why not?

---

Would would be the proposition even if taken to the polls? That the city can't renew the contract once it runs out? That they can't have a system that can be accessed by others? That they can't be on city right of way? That they can't be allowed at all? That they can't add any new ones? That they have to be limited to a certain number?

Exact verbiage, I don't know.

But essentially like the red light cameras. Be removed from public property. Yes or no vote.

Maybe someone has access to the ballot that had the red light cameras on it?

CS78 said:

---

Exact verbiage, I don't know.

But essentially like the red light cameras. Be removed from public property. Yes or no vote.

Maybe someone has access to the ballot that had the red light cameras on it?

---

In hearing from the bosses and reading yalls exchange, it's
apparent to me we're not far from a constitutional amendment (first time since what? Early 90s?) addressing privacy. Technology is waiting for no one and advancing and proliferating at breakneck speed. And honestly, shutting Flock down is like emptying a teaspoon out of the privacy ocean. That's not a reason to press the accelerator but it is the truth.

I have been impressed to see the nonpartisan coalescing around this one issue- but there are so many more. There's a dizzying array of visual and electronic tracking techniques. Most new cars have built in gps tracking. Most have cameras. And many of those cameras are remotely accessible depending upon the privacy settings.

I like to move to 50,000 feet and look down at most issues. To get upstream and get at the core question. How can we
pick this one issue and ignore the rest? Perhaps someone will organize a larger privacy advocacy effort soon.

Respectfully

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

CS78 said:

---

Exact verbiage, I don't know.

But essentially like the red light cameras. Be removed from public property. Yes or no vote.

Maybe someone has access to the ballot that had the red light cameras on it?

---

Digging up newspaper archives, the way it was worded was very confusing, with a vote in favor was to remove the cameras and was decided by less than 300 votes (though the 3809 vs. 4081 vote was more than a 1% margin).

The red-light cameras also had a concrete issue in that the money collected by the cameras mostly went to American Traffic Solutions in Arizona, and after sharing with the state, the city only got a little over $400,000 with $1.4M in fines issued. Plus, it was ATS which decided the intersections to put them at, not the city.

In that case, there were two very compelling issues that were at stake, with the argument of safety being weak because it wasn't necessarily where the cameras could do the most good in terms of safety, and the argument of finances was weak because so much of that money simply disappeared.

The cameras didn't go away immediately, either, the city was to vote on the issue about a week or so later, but a lawsuit was filed, and a judge put a restraining order until November 20th. The city voted to remove them citing the vote outcome, and the lawsuit was resolved after a two-and-a-half-hour closed-door meeting. The cameras went away in late January 2010 as the contract allowed a 60-day period with some additional payments made (not much, I reckon, since it wasn't talked about much).

In the red light camera case, it was a hotly debated issue. PACs were created, with the anti-camera group, "Take Your Back Your City", and the pro-camera group, "Keep College Station Safe". Debates were done.

I would say comparing it to the red light cameras is very, very different. The anti-red light camera group had some very compelling evidence to counter what the pro-red light camera group was arguing. I don't see any of that here. Here I see constantly shifting arguments, whether it's the issue of "other municipalities seeing our data" or "data can be abused by LEOs".

I know in some of my posts I may come off like I support Flock cameras, I don't actually care that much in favor of them. I do think, however, that many of the arguments against Flock cameras, are, quite simply, bad. Arguments in this thread, like "well, there COULD be license plate reader abuse from it" or "there was a police officer in Florida or somewhere who abused his power to harass an ex-girlfriend" or "of course I leave my phone on, why?" are going to get laughed out of the room the second someone brings up a counter-argument.

My advice to anyone who is actually serious about getting rid of Flock cameras and not just hoping you can ram it through on the ballot, is to come up with counters. Don't make excuses as to why your smartphone and Ring camera don't count. Don't deal with elaborate scenarios that only exist in your head. Don't dismiss solved and foiled crimes out of hand.

The Founding Fathers fought for freedom, why can't you?

The red light camera vote was born of the power of initiative, which is a citizen forced ballot measure to adopt an ordinance after gathering sufficient signatures.

It takes a citizen willing to put forth the time and effort, and several citizens willing to sign in agreement.

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

In hearing from the bosses and reading yalls exchange, it's
apparent to me we're not far from a constitutional amendment (first time since what? Early 90s?) addressing privacy. Technology is waiting for no one and advancing and proliferating at breakneck speed. And honestly, shutting Flock down is like emptying a teaspoon out of the privacy ocean. That's not a reason to press the accelerator but it is the truth.

I have been impressed to see the nonpartisan coalescing around this one issue- but there are so many more. There's a dizzying array of visual and electronic tracking techniques. Most new cars have built in gps tracking. Most have cameras. And many of those cameras are remotely accessible depending upon the privacy settings.

I like to move to 50,000 feet and look down at most issues. To get upstream and get at the core question. How can we
pick this one issue and ignore the rest? Perhaps someone will organize a larger privacy advocacy effort soon.

Respectfully

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

---

Bob, with all due respect, that sounds like dancing around the subject.

"How can we pick this one issue and ignore the rest?"

Because this one is government sponsored. More specifically, the city of College Station. AKA city council and mayor.

Is there a possibility of getting the council to add this to the ballot in November? If so, what is the process?

---

This just might be an issue someone could take up before the election and work to push through a solution. The leadership shown in representing the voting public on the Data center was amazing. Without that the Data center would have happened just like the cameras happened in the "Dark of night".

Councilman Yancy please continue to be a shining light and bring College Station management from the dark shadows to the light.
All things are much healthier when exposed to fresh air and light. Quite possibly even our local politics.

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

In hearing from the bosses and reading yalls exchange, it's
apparent to me we're not far from a constitutional amendment (first time since what? Early 90s?) addressing privacy. Technology is waiting for no one and advancing and proliferating at breakneck speed. And honestly, shutting Flock down is like emptying a teaspoon out of the privacy ocean. That's not a reason to press the accelerator but it is the truth.

I have been impressed to see the nonpartisan coalescing around this one issue- but there are so many more. There's a dizzying array of visual and electronic tracking techniques. Most new cars have built in gps tracking. Most have cameras. And many of those cameras are remotely accessible depending upon the privacy settings.

I like to move to 50,000 feet and look down at most issues. To get upstream and get at the core question. How can we
pick this one issue and ignore the rest? Perhaps someone will organize a larger privacy advocacy effort soon.

Respectfully

Yancy '95 Place 5
Mayoral Candidate

---

Bob, with all due respect, that sounds like dancing around the subject.

"How can we pick this one issue and ignore the rest?"

Because this one is government sponsored. More specifically, the city of College Station. AKA city council and mayor.

Is there a possibility of getting the council to add this to the ballot in November? If so, what is the process?

---

I think we're passed the time deadline to get it on the ballot in November. As far as dancing around the subject, my point wasn't made well. I'll try an analogy. You have a shed
out back and it has 40 leaks in the roof. You decide to fix one leak and you succeed in patching it perfectly. The next thunderstorm all the hay gets wet again anyway.

The word "privacy" does not appear in the constitution. To fix the entire roof (looking down from 50,000 feet) perhaps it should- in the form of a privacy amendment. As lofty as that sounds, I suspect that's where our nation is ultimately headed, driven by the proliferation of technology.

I know that's not responsive to your specific concern here, I'm simply pontificating on what it'll likely take to truly fix the roof.

Philosophically,

Yancy '95

Why isn't flock used to flag every stolen vehicle or every vehicle that is not insured? If it's good enough for mass surveillance, then use it to it's full potential ... privacy be damned.

Anything that sinks to a circular argument is probably a bad thing.

It does flag every stolen vehicle that's entered into stolen vehicles database(s).

If their system was connected to TCIC for the purpose of expired registration/insurance, it would be flagging about every fifth vehicle on the road…

I think you are on to something now. I like it!!

I have three primary issues with the implementation

1) The 30 day look back. This isn't necessary in the majority of the cases touted as urgent and impactful. Change the system to zero-retention, alert on monitored plates only.
2) The excessive access by external organizations with no governance or control accountability. Accept monitored plates from other jurisdictions but each must be accompanied by a warrant.
3) The potential for mass surveillance scope creep. The implications are just too many to enumerate. There are already functional controls available. Require a warrant to add a plate to the monitored list.

And just like that, it is functional for police and controlled against abuse (mostly, that is).