Who are those against the flock cameras?
Candidates against flock cameras?
4,913 Views |
57 Replies |
Last: 12 hrs ago by woodiewood1
Our teams official stance
Valen Cepak
College Station City Council Place 5 Candidate
Valen Cepak.com
College Station City Council Place 5 Candidate
Valen Cepak.com
Again with the too many words.
Hey sir where do you stand on FLOCK?
In it's present form I am against it and will not support it if elected.
***ETA***
348 Words to say 15 lol
Hey sir where do you stand on FLOCK?
In it's present form I am against it and will not support it if elected.
***ETA***
348 Words to say 15 lol
www.elitellp.net/
He went a bit further and said he is opposed to ALPR technology. I don't believe any other candidate has taken such a strong position.
ok 348 words to say 19
www.elitellp.net/
Hey now, this was before our little chat. It was already ready to go. I didn't ignore our conversation haha.
Valen Cepak
College Station City Council Place 5 Candidate
Valen Cepak.com
College Station City Council Place 5 Candidate
Valen Cepak.com
Being opposed to an entire technology is probably not a great thing. The technology itself has some great uses, it is how it is being used that is the problem. If you are opposed to ALPR across the board as the candidate claims to be, then he should also be opposed to toll booths that use it as well for example.
That stance is similar to Cunha saying she will not engage with anyone on social media because she says it is bad for your mental health. Some uses of social media are bad for sure, some are quite useful.
That stance is similar to Cunha saying she will not engage with anyone on social media because she says it is bad for your mental health. Some uses of social media are bad for sure, some are quite useful.
I think you make a good point. However, in the context of flock I am against ALPR that take data and store it in an AI based cloud system. I am also against the form it has taken on a surveillance scale. I have no issue with law enforcement using the technology on their squad cars because it is localized and unstored data that isn't accessible by others.
Valen Cepak
College Station City Council Place 5 Candidate
Valen Cepak.com
College Station City Council Place 5 Candidate
Valen Cepak.com
But he's all about the proliferation of governmental drone usage.
I believe Roy May has spoken out about this. I know at a council meeting he pushed for the data retention period to be brought down from 30 days to 7.
Roy has said he opposed renewing Flock but not ALPRs. I think he's on the same page as Bob about looking into Axon or other alternatives. Smith is on record voting against the renewal. Not sure where the others stand (other than Valen, obviously)
JL18 said:
I believe Roy May has spoken out about this. I know at a council meeting he pushed for the data retention period to be brought down from 30 days to 7.
I am against government 24/7 surveillance of citizens moving about our community. If we have to have them, we should make the penalty for illegal use of them extreme such as six months in jail the first time.
I will vote against any candidate that support the use of Flock cameras without severe restriction on their access and severe penalties for mis-use.
I will vote against any candidate that supports these things. No exceptions or qualifications.
I think you're right on this. Thanks!
Understandable. I think Roy is against Flock. Can confirm if you'd like. I know he has a website with a Contact Roy form on it.
EFR said:
Being opposed to an entire technology is probably not a great thing. The technology itself has some great uses, it is how it is being used that is the problem. If you are opposed to ALPR across the board as the candidate claims to be, then he should also be opposed to toll booths that use it as well for example.
That stance is similar to Cunha saying she will not engage with anyone on social media because she says it is bad for your mental health. Some uses of social media are bad for sure, some are quite useful.
"f you are opposed to ALPR across the board as the candidate claims to be, then he should also be opposed to toll booths that use it as well for example."
Does the government have easy and quick access to the toll booth ALPR data that is managed by a private company? Also you elect to drive on a toll road with the knowledge that data will be collected in order to debit you. I have to drive down streets around town when there are numerous Flock cameras that appear to be readily accessible by government officials.
FILO505 said:
Roy has said he opposed renewing Flock but not ALPRs. I think he's on the same page as Bob about looking into Axon or other alternatives. Smith is on record voting against the renewal. Not sure where the others stand (other than Valen, obviously)
What I read that he thinks we need them but should have a restriction on access.
"Responsible use of flock cameras" is a distraction. I'm not worried about some obsessed policeman. I'm worried about the ever encroaching state.
Queso1 said:
I will vote against any candidate that supports these things. No exceptions or qualifications.
Soooo, you're writing someone in for mayor?
Hornbeck said:Queso1 said:
I will vote against any candidate that supports these things. No exceptions or qualifications.
Soooo, you're writing someone in for mayor?
Or maybe he won't cast a vote for mayor. We all know Bob is going to win. I suspect his position against flock, but for ALPRs was a calculated political position that allowed him to ride the fence without it affecting the election. The race is not tight enough to require him to take a harder stance,
On their facebook pages, Ive asked these five candidates about their positions on flock and ALPRs. I'll post any responses I get back here.
Howard Mayne
Roy May
Chandler Arden
Michael Kidd
Padon Holt
Howard Mayne
Roy May
Chandler Arden
Michael Kidd
Padon Holt
Howdy! I couldn't find your post on my Facebook page so I figured I would start up a TexAgs account to reply here so everybody can see (new account, but I've been on TexAgs since the Sherman days). I'm not opposed to ALPRs. They're a useful tool for law enforcement. My issue is with Flock. They've been far too reactionary when it comes to privacy, data retention, and sharing. When we're collecting information on law-abiding citizens who haven't done anything wrong, those protections should've been in place from the start, not after public scrutiny.
I would not have voted to renew Flock's contract. I would've wanted to look at other options, including Axon, which we already use in our cruisers. I'm all for giving our officers the tools they need to do their jobs, but that doesn't mean giving a private company a free pass when it comes to our residents' privacy. The technology isn't my concern. My confidence in Flock is.
If y'all ever have any questions for me, I'll try to keep up with it here, but you can also visit my website (RoyMayforCS.com) and there's a "Contact me" tab where you can ask any questions you like and I'll get back to you over email. Thanks, and BTHOalabama (a man can dream)
I would not have voted to renew Flock's contract. I would've wanted to look at other options, including Axon, which we already use in our cruisers. I'm all for giving our officers the tools they need to do their jobs, but that doesn't mean giving a private company a free pass when it comes to our residents' privacy. The technology isn't my concern. My confidence in Flock is.
If y'all ever have any questions for me, I'll try to keep up with it here, but you can also visit my website (RoyMayforCS.com) and there's a "Contact me" tab where you can ask any questions you like and I'll get back to you over email. Thanks, and BTHOalabama (a man can dream)
Michael Kidd asked that I post his response. Looks like he'll be getting mine and my family's vote. I also like a lot of the other stuff he has to say.
"Why I Oppose Flock Cameras in College Station
Let me be clear: I support our law enforcement officers, and I believe public safety should always be a priority. But I also believe protecting the constitutional rights and privacy of our citizens is just as important.
My concern with Flock cameras comes down to five things:
Privacy: Law-abiding citizens shouldn't have their vehicles and movements constantly recorded simply because they're driving through our community.
Government Overreach: We need to be careful about giving government agencies technology that can track people's movements. Once that power exists, we need to ask who controls it and how it could be abused.
Data Sharing: I have serious concerns about who can access this information, whether it's shared with outside agencies, and how we protect our residents from unauthorized use.
Accountability: Who oversees this system? How long is the information stored? What safeguards prevent misuse? Citizens deserve clear answers.
Our Constitutional Freedoms: I believe in protecting the freedoms that make America great. We should not have to sacrifice personal privacy in the name of public safety.
My position is simple: I support law enforcement, but I do not support turning College Station into a community where everyone's movements can be tracked and recorded.
We can fight crime, support our police officers, and keep our neighborhoods safe without compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
Public safety matters. But so does freedom.
Michael Kidd
Candidate for College Station City Council, Place 2"
"Why I Oppose Flock Cameras in College Station
Let me be clear: I support our law enforcement officers, and I believe public safety should always be a priority. But I also believe protecting the constitutional rights and privacy of our citizens is just as important.
My concern with Flock cameras comes down to five things:
Privacy: Law-abiding citizens shouldn't have their vehicles and movements constantly recorded simply because they're driving through our community.
Government Overreach: We need to be careful about giving government agencies technology that can track people's movements. Once that power exists, we need to ask who controls it and how it could be abused.
Data Sharing: I have serious concerns about who can access this information, whether it's shared with outside agencies, and how we protect our residents from unauthorized use.
Accountability: Who oversees this system? How long is the information stored? What safeguards prevent misuse? Citizens deserve clear answers.
Our Constitutional Freedoms: I believe in protecting the freedoms that make America great. We should not have to sacrifice personal privacy in the name of public safety.
My position is simple: I support law enforcement, but I do not support turning College Station into a community where everyone's movements can be tracked and recorded.
We can fight crime, support our police officers, and keep our neighborhoods safe without compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
Public safety matters. But so does freedom.
Michael Kidd
Candidate for College Station City Council, Place 2"
Howard Mayne's response-
"There are legitimate privacy concerns about retention, access, sharing, and misuse. I want tighter guardrails, transparent auditing, and a serious comparison of Flock with other providers before committing long term.
Automatic license plate readers have real public safety value. They help recover stolen vehicles, locate wanted suspects, and solve serious crimes. The question is, which provider works best for College Station, and will hold the trust of our citizens.
We have a lot of work to do in the next year before we renew our contract with flock."
"There are legitimate privacy concerns about retention, access, sharing, and misuse. I want tighter guardrails, transparent auditing, and a serious comparison of Flock with other providers before committing long term.
Automatic license plate readers have real public safety value. They help recover stolen vehicles, locate wanted suspects, and solve serious crimes. The question is, which provider works best for College Station, and will hold the trust of our citizens.
We have a lot of work to do in the next year before we renew our contract with flock."
CS78 said:
Howard Mayne's response-
"There are legitimate privacy concerns about retention, access, sharing, and misuse. I want tighter guardrails, transparent auditing, and a serious comparison of Flock with other providers before committing long term.
Automatic license plate readers have real public safety value. They help recover stolen vehicles, locate wanted suspects, and solve serious crimes. The question is, which provider works best for College Station, and will hold the trust of our citizens.
We have a lot of work to do in the next year before we renew our contract with flock."
This sounds like he supports Flock. That last line sounds like he assumes Flock will be renewed.
"The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin
It feels like everyone is just ChatGPTing at each other.
b0ridi said:
It feels like everyone is just ChatGPTing at each other.
A lot of them are just parroting Yancy's position. Willing to throw flock under the bus so they can say they're addressing people's concerns. But not actually listen to people and stand up for constitutional rights.
I would amend your statement to say, " it is clear that SOME MEMBERS" of our community do not want LPR cameras. I would propose a voter referendum rather than having folks asking for votes make the decision based on a few loud voices.
LOYAL AG said:CS78 said:
Howard Mayne's response-
"There are legitimate privacy concerns about retention, access, sharing, and misuse. I want tighter guardrails, transparent auditing, and a serious comparison of Flock with other providers before committing long term.
Automatic license plate readers have real public safety value. They help recover stolen vehicles, locate wanted suspects, and solve serious crimes. The question is, which provider works best for College Station, and will hold the trust of our citizens.
We have a lot of work to do in the next year before we renew our contract with flock."
This sounds like he supports Flock. That last line sounds like he assumes Flock will be renewed.
The unsolicited spam text that I just got from Mayne explains it, I think. He's a reserve deputy. That's respectable but I don't know if having a law enforcement officer on city council is the wisest choice. Seems like there could be some conflicts of interest with sensitive subjects, like this one.
We also see the College Station Police Officers endorsement again.
oldag76 said:
I would propose a voter referendum rather than having folks asking for votes make the decision based on a few loud voices.
That's all the loud voices ever really want on these things. Let the people choose when things get this high profile. But we shouldn't be forced to gather signatures. Council should see the conflict and put it into action themselves. A pipe dream though to think a bunch of elected officials are going to voluntarily cede an important decision to the people.
Response from Padon Holt-
" This is obviously a hot issue that has nuanced positions on both sides of the topic, but here is my concise answer:
I would not have voted to renew the Flock camera contract at last week's City Council meeting because I truly believe the current, unregulated state of ALPR camera use leaves the door open for them to be used in ways that violate the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
At the same time, I would be open to their use once the federal judiciary renders their decisions on cases that are currently pending before them, particularly the Schmidt v City of Norfolk, VA case, which deals with the constitutionality of ALPR camera networks directly, in addition to the Texas legislature implementing Texas-specific regulation on this issue.
I recognize the potential utility of ALPR cameras for our Police Department, which I've been endorsed by, but as an attorney, I'm a zealous advocate of and for the Constitution and the checks and balance mechanisms it contains. The relative newness of this technology means it needs to be processed through those systems to ensure our 4th Amendment rights are not sacrificed at the alter of technological progress."
" This is obviously a hot issue that has nuanced positions on both sides of the topic, but here is my concise answer:
I would not have voted to renew the Flock camera contract at last week's City Council meeting because I truly believe the current, unregulated state of ALPR camera use leaves the door open for them to be used in ways that violate the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
At the same time, I would be open to their use once the federal judiciary renders their decisions on cases that are currently pending before them, particularly the Schmidt v City of Norfolk, VA case, which deals with the constitutionality of ALPR camera networks directly, in addition to the Texas legislature implementing Texas-specific regulation on this issue.
I recognize the potential utility of ALPR cameras for our Police Department, which I've been endorsed by, but as an attorney, I'm a zealous advocate of and for the Constitution and the checks and balance mechanisms it contains. The relative newness of this technology means it needs to be processed through those systems to ensure our 4th Amendment rights are not sacrificed at the alter of technological progress."
oldag76 said:
I would amend your statement to say, " it is clear that SOME MEMBERS" of our community do not want LPR cameras. I would propose a voter referendum rather than having folks asking for votes make the decision based on a few loud voices.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/poll-reveals-texans-distaste-for-flock-cameras-and-data-centers/
A voter referendum more than likely will not go the way FLOCK supporters want it to go, thus their resistance to add one to the ballots.
www.elitellp.net/
So based on what I am seeing, Roy May and Valen Cepak seem to be the candidates to go for if one is in opposition to state surveillance. Am I wrong?
Go back and reread Roy Mays response. Basically, Yancys position. They dont have a problem with ALPR surveillance but they dont like Flock, the company.
Unfortunately for place 1, we have a choice between May and Mayne, with very similar positions. Or White which voted against flock but I dont have a lot of faith in, after watching his other commentary.
For place 2, Michael Kidd, is my choice. He was fast to respond and confident in his stance of being against them. Chandler Arden is the only person that I could not get a response from. I was told that he was in favor of flock and ALPRs.
For place 5. I did not reach out to Tre Watson. I wish I would have just to be fair but I was really trying to choose between the other two options. Valen Cepak, he posted for himself above and is opposed. And Padon Holt's response seemed to be one of the more reasonable positions Ive seen. Both candidates seem like good options. I wish one of them were running for place 1 instead.
Unfortunately for place 1, we have a choice between May and Mayne, with very similar positions. Or White which voted against flock but I dont have a lot of faith in, after watching his other commentary.
For place 2, Michael Kidd, is my choice. He was fast to respond and confident in his stance of being against them. Chandler Arden is the only person that I could not get a response from. I was told that he was in favor of flock and ALPRs.
For place 5. I did not reach out to Tre Watson. I wish I would have just to be fair but I was really trying to choose between the other two options. Valen Cepak, he posted for himself above and is opposed. And Padon Holt's response seemed to be one of the more reasonable positions Ive seen. Both candidates seem like good options. I wish one of them were running for place 1 instead.
This is where I'm against it. The police do not need any more information than they already get!
The police in College Station are very aggressive. I don't want another tool to give them in order to give me some type of ticket.
This isn't freedom. Our founders never envisioned a class of people policing us and especially giving power to a group of people who would be policing our every move.
We live in Texas, not a Chinese police state.
The police in College Station are very aggressive. I don't want another tool to give them in order to give me some type of ticket.
This isn't freedom. Our founders never envisioned a class of people policing us and especially giving power to a group of people who would be policing our every move.
We live in Texas, not a Chinese police state.