DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WATSONVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S USE OF FLOCK SAFETY CAMERAS

Official wording

DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WATSONVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S USE OF FLOCK SAFETY CAMERAS 1.Report - Flock Safety Discussion.pdf 2.1) Current Flock Safety Agreement.pdf 3.Public Comments 1.pdf 4.Public Comments 2.pdf 5.Presentation - Flock Safety Discussion.pdf Shannon Candelario I understand the concerns about privacy. I think those concerns are legitimate, and they deserve serious consideration. But I also think we need to look at Flock in the context of the world we live in today. We are surrounded by cameras. Businesses have security cameras. Homes have Ring and other doorbell cameras. Traffic intersections have cameras. People walk around with smartphones that can record us and immediately post those images or videos to social media. And almost all of us carry smartphones. Pew Research Center reported in 2025 that 98 percent of American adults own a cellphone and 91 percent own a smartphone. Those phones can record photographs, video and location information, depending on the device and the applications we use. So, the question before us should not simply be, "Are we being recorded?" We already are. The question should be: What information is being collected, who controls it, how is it protected, how long is it kept, and how is it used? That is where Flock's safeguards matter. Watsonville currently has an agreement for 37 Flock ALPR cameras. The City's own information explains that the system is used for retroactive criminal investigations and real-time alerts involving hotlist vehicles. Flock's ALPR technology is also different from a red-light camera system. A red-light enforcement system operates under California traffic-enforcement laws and can be used to issue a notice to the registered owner of a vehicle. Flock's ALPR system, by contrast, captures vehicle information such as the license plate, time, date, location and vehicle characteristics. Flock states that its ALPR system does not collect driver information, facial-recognition data or biometric information. That distinction matters. And then there is retention. Flock's current standard retention period is seven days. The company states that data is automatically deleted after that period unless a different period is required by law or established under the customer's agreement. Specific information can be preserved when it is connected to an active investigation. That is a very different proposition from creating a permanent record of everyone's movements. There are also security and accountability safeguards. Flock states that data is encrypted in transit and at rest, uses Amazon Web Services for cloud storage, and that authorized law-enforcement searches require justification and create an audit trail. Flock also says every search is auditable and has introduced tools designed to identify unusual activity. And Watsonville has made its Flock policies and usage statistics available to the public through its transparency portal. We should also remember that Watsonville is not operating in isolation. Caltrans has an extensive statewide network of highway CCTV cameras. Caltrans publishes the locations of those cameras and states that its traffic-camera video and still images are not retained or archived. So, I believe the responsible approach is not to pretend cameras don't exist. It is to make sure the cameras we choose to use are governed by strong rules. If Watsonville expands Flock, I believe we should continue requiring strict limits on retention, controlled access, audit trails, public reporting, and clear rules about when information can be searched or preserved. And we should measure the system by results: crimes solved, stolen vehicles recovered, missing people located, investigative leads generated, false alerts, costs, and actual usage. If the system is going to be part of Watsonville's public safety strategy, then let's make sure we have enough coverage for it to be useful. I respectfully ask the Council to continue the Flock program, consider increasing camera coverage where there are demonstrated public-safety needs, and maintain strong privacy and accountability safeguards as that system grows. 1) Staff Report by Police Chief Shab 2) City Council Clarifying & Technical Questions 3) Public Input 4) Motion Accepting Report Regarding the Watsonville Police Department’s Current Use of Flock Safety Cameras & Providing Direction to Staff 5) City Council Deliberation on Motion