Plymouth and Dayton struggle to remove Flock surveillance cameras
Plymouth and Dayton, Minnesota, have faced problems getting Flock Safety to disable or remove its licence plate cameras after deciding to end or pause their contracts. The incidents raise questions about how much control local authorities have over surveillance equipment once it is installed.
Plymouth’s council voted to terminate its contract in September, but after receiving no response for more than a month, Police Chief Eric Fadden ordered staff to disconnect the cameras’ power. Flock told Dayton it could take up to 60 days to remove equipment, then reconnected two cameras despite the city’s instruction not to carry out maintenance work. Similar disputes have arisen in Elgin, Illinois; Flock did not immediately comment.
In short
- Plymouth disconnected cameras after hearing nothing from Flock.
- Flock reconnected two cameras in Dayton without authorisation.
- Elgin Community College also reported difficulties removing cameras.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Local authorities should be able to end surveillance contracts and promptly disable or remove equipment when elected officials decide it no longer serves the public interest. Delays or unauthorised work can weaken democratic oversight and public trust, particularly where cameras collect sensitive data.
The case against
Removing installed equipment may require coordination, time and clear contractual procedures, and a supplier may need a reasonable period to carry out the work safely. If contract terms or responsibilities are disputed, following an orderly process can protect both the city and supplier while avoiding damage or confusion over equipment and data.
Explained simply
Flock Safety is a US company that supplies automated licence plate cameras to local authorities. The cameras photograph passing vehicles and can help police identify cars linked to an investigation.
Cities such as Plymouth and Dayton in Minnesota decide whether to buy the service through contracts with the company. Ending a contract can involve more than stopping payments: the cameras may still be installed, and the company may need to disable or remove them.
The disputes matter because they raise questions about who controls surveillance equipment once it is in place. They also affect how local authorities can carry out decisions about the use of cameras in their communities.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Verge as “Flock keeps ignoring requests to cancel its contracts”.