Mountain View officials are speaking out after a federal investigation revealed that its Flock cameras were accessed by federal agencies without the city's consent. An internal audit found that several federal law enforcement agencies, including those in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and Nevada, accessed the camera's data from August to November 2024.
According to Mountain View officials, an internal search setting on Flock Safety was turned on, which allowed California law enforcement agencies to access data from all 30 of the city's Flock cameras without prior approval. This has raised concerns over surveillance and privacy rights in the community.
Critics argue that fixing just the data settings is not enough to address the issue, as it does not guarantee protection against unauthorized access. "The city can goodwill it to death," said Cat Brooks with the Anti Police-Terror Project. "If they are gathering that data, there is no protecting that data from anybody who wants it and who wants it bad enough."
Mountain View officials have assured residents that the camera settings have since been changed, but many remain concerned about the city's relationship with Flock Safety. A review of the ALPR pilot program is set to be brought before the City Council in coming weeks, with staff evaluating alternative vendors for data protection and oversight.
The incident highlights ongoing debates over surveillance technology and data sharing, particularly in urban areas where cameras are increasingly used to monitor public spaces.
According to Mountain View officials, an internal search setting on Flock Safety was turned on, which allowed California law enforcement agencies to access data from all 30 of the city's Flock cameras without prior approval. This has raised concerns over surveillance and privacy rights in the community.
Critics argue that fixing just the data settings is not enough to address the issue, as it does not guarantee protection against unauthorized access. "The city can goodwill it to death," said Cat Brooks with the Anti Police-Terror Project. "If they are gathering that data, there is no protecting that data from anybody who wants it and who wants it bad enough."
Mountain View officials have assured residents that the camera settings have since been changed, but many remain concerned about the city's relationship with Flock Safety. A review of the ALPR pilot program is set to be brought before the City Council in coming weeks, with staff evaluating alternative vendors for data protection and oversight.
The incident highlights ongoing debates over surveillance technology and data sharing, particularly in urban areas where cameras are increasingly used to monitor public spaces.
this is so shady they're just changing the settings now? that's not gonna stop some determined person from hacking in i feel like city officials should be more transparent about their security measures, it's not just about fixing a setting...
this happened?! i'm so glad the city is taking steps to change the settings on those cameras tho 
that's a good start, but i totally agree with Cat Brooks the problem goes deeper than just fixing the data settings we need more transparency and accountability from our city officials about how they're using surveillance tech 
it's also super concerning that these agencies were able to access the cameras without consent what's next?! 
california law enforcement agencies gotta do their job somehow. also, shouldn't ppl be more worried about ppl outside the system exploiting all this tech for malicious stuff anyway? 
like what's next? they're gonna tell us the cameras on our streets are just for our own safety lol no one really believes that anymore. it's all about control, man. first it's Flock, then who knows what other companies are getting access to our data without our consent? and now they're saying they're reviewing the ALPR program, but I'm thinking that's just code for "we're gonna roll out even more surveillance tech" 
. First, you gotta wonder how those federal agencies even knew they could access the cameras' data in the first place 
. And now that they have, it feels like no one's really holding anyone accountable 
.
. We need better data protection measures in place, not just some quick fix 
. It's like, what if someone really does want that data bad enough? 
How are you supposed to keep it safe then? 
It's like, what's the point of having all these surveillance cameras if you're not even gonna follow through on the basics of consent and transparency?
I mean, what's next? Are they gonna start handing out free tin foil hats or something?
. And now they're just fixing the settings and saying "oh well, problem solved"? That's not how it works 
. We need stricter controls on this stuff or else we'll be living in some kind of surveillance state where the government (or in this case, law enforcement) can access our data whenever they feel like it 
. And what about the people who don't agree with those agencies? What's to stop them from getting their info too? It's all just a big mess 
. It just doesn't feel right. And Cat Brooks is totally right - just changing the data settings isn't enough! What about all those cameras that are still being monitored without consent? 
. And what's with the camera settings being on by default? That's just a big red flag 
.
it's not like we're just going to magically grant permission or something 
. we need actual change, not just a slap on the wrist 
. and what's with all these city officials talking about "re-evaluating" their relationship with Flock Safety? 
camera settings can't protect you from bad intentions 
Flock safety needs a serious overhaul 
while cat brooks is low-key being right 
all the vibes of surveillance state anxiety 
