Anderson police chief tasked to respond to council questions about Flock cameras 

“Without privacy, there is no freedom, ” said one commenter. “Do you support humanistic slavery?”

Heavy dissent flooded the Anderson City Council chambers last night as the city’s use of Flock cameras appeared as a discussion item onto the council agenda.  

Flock Safety’s network of AI-powered cameras were acquired by Anderson Police Department in 2019, aimed at providing assistance with finding stolen vehicles and missing persons, the city said. Current Council members Mike Gallagher and Susie Baugh were already on the council when the body approved the contract with Flock. 

Nationwide concerns about whether Flock cameras pose a violation of 4th Amendment rights have been raised. Citing federal supreme court cases, including Carpenter v. United States and United States v. Jones, multiple attendees explained they’re concerned about privacy given the use of surveillance cameras across Anderson. 

Some commenters specifically called out political candidates, including those running in both the city and county, as needing to take a stance. 

“I want to address you, Mr. Gallagher,” one said, pointing to the current Anderson council member who’s running for an open Shasta County board seat this fall. “You want to win Super District 5? End Flock cameras effective immediately, today.”

Community member Richard Gallardo agreed, telling candidates for the Anderson City Council he would like them on the record before Election Day on whether they would support cancelling the Flock contract. 

Anderson candidate Amarjit Singh, who sat in the room, did not respond but another candidate, Lexus Alexander did, rising to speak at the dais where stated her opposition to continued police surveillance of Anderson community members. 

Among muttered hostility from the crowd, Gallagher used his time to during board discussion to express general support for Flock cameras as a safety tool, saying repeatedly that “ALPR’s solve crimes” and emphasizing his belief that cell phones surveil citizens more than Flock cameras do. But he also noted that he has “more questions about Flocks than answers.” His opponent, current Shasta County Board Chair Chris Kelstrom, sat in the audience watching but didn’t comment. 

Council members used their discussion time to share questions they have about Flock cameras, requesting Anderson Police Chief Oliver Collins to bring back answers at an upcoming council meeting. There was a consensus among four of the five members that they needed more information on potential 4th Amendment violations, what protections are in place to safeguard data access, and what benefits Anderson is seeing from the use of Flock. 

Councilman Darin Hale was the outlier, focusing not on questions but on sharing information he’s already gathered in opposition to the cameras. Passing out a packet with the latest Flock Safety terms and conditions contract, which he said were updated in September, Hale pointed out what he sees as loopholes in the language, such as the possibility that Flock may retain data even after a contract ends.

“There is no question in my mind [Flock is] completely untrustworthy as a company,” said Hale. 

He pushed for the council to not only ask for information at the next meeting but to also vote to make a decision on whether or not to end the contract with Flock at that time. Council member Bonnie Simpson pushed back, saying she’d need more time to consider the information presented before voting on whether to keep or end the contract.

The council’s meeting was only the beginning of what looks likely to be an extended city conversation on the relative merits of efforts to increase safety vs. concerns about surveillance. The council will hear from Collins on Oct. 20 and may consider whether to end the Flock contract at a subsequent meeting.

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.