Flock cameras

Cited documented misuse elsewhere, questioned internal-only oversight, and suggested independent auditing; also worried cameras can see inside vehicles and track domestic violence victims.

Said the 'myths vs facts' framing felt like gaslighting given Flock's national misuse scandals, questioned spending on cameras while claiming a public-safety budget, and asked why federal data sharing wasn't on the slide.

Argued Flock cameras violate the Fourth Amendment without warrants, cited a recent Supreme Court geofence ruling, invoked 18 U.S.C. § 242, and challenged police to guarantee Flock doesn't share data with ICE.

Said the presentation cleared up some questions but not the transparency problem: the reason field and officer identifiers disappeared from public CSV files, making meaningful public auditing impossible; also questioned the arrest-per-plate rate.

A cybersecurity professional warned the cameras have Bluetooth tracking capability and, generally, poor hardware security accessible to anyone with basic command-line skills.

Worried about who else accesses Flock data — citing cases in other states — and urged against data centers in the water- and power-strained Central Valley.

Asked for more transparency on the Flock cameras, thanked council members for their public service, and invited all to his September 5 exhibit at the Tulare County Museum.