u/Flocking_Hell

You all know the KCSO stuff better than I do so I won't go back over it. Two things first though, because I almost got the first one wrong myself.

The workshop on the 24th has no public comment. You can go and sit and listen, and that's it. No votes either.

But the commission's regular meetings do let you speak. There's a public forum at the end of those and it's open to any topic, not just what's on the agenda. You get three to five minutes. You have to sign up with the commission office by 4pm the day before, either call 865-215-2534 or email them through commission.knoxcountytn.gov/contact, and give your name, address and what you want to talk about. You can also grab the vice chair in person before it starts. Regular meetings are the fourth Monday in the Large Assembly Room. Give them a ring to check the next date.

That's the bit I'd pass around. Everything in the news has been about the workshop, so people are going to show up on the 24th thinking they can speak and find out they can't.

About me: I keep a list of every place that's ended, paused or fought a Flock contract. What people argued, how the vote went, what happened after. Twelve have ended one so far. It's free and there's nothing to sign up for.

One favor: if you use any of this, link the news story and not me. Every entry has the original link on it. "WOSU reported on August 10 that the audit found" is hard to argue with. "I read it on some website" isn't, and somebody will try.

Here's the thing that surprised me reading all twelve. Almost none of them won by saying surveillance is bad. They won on one specific thing the council couldn't explain away.

WHO ELSE CAN SEARCH YOUR DATA. This is the big one and there's fresh proof. Columbus checked their own system last month and found over 15,000 searches that looked immigration related. None of them were ICE. They came from other agencies who had access to the same shared pool, and that's the part people miss. Mountain View in California found ATF offices in two states, Langley Air Force Base and the GSA Inspector General had all searched one single city camera. That happened through a nationwide setting the city says Flock switched on without the police even knowing. El Cerrito voted 3-2 to drop it over the same thing.

So if you get your five minutes, that's your question. Has anyone ever checked who searched Knox County's data, and can we see it? Columbus only found their number because one councilmember asked.

MONEY, for the commissioners who don't care about privacy. Killingworth in Connecticut was paying $14,600 a year for four cameras and their First Selectman said flat out they "had not added any value to local policing efforts." That gets through to people the privacy stuff doesn't. 270 readers running into a live feed center is a real number to hold up next to what you actually get for it.

IF YOU CAN'T KILL IT OUTRIGHT. Idaho Falls kept their cameras but rewrote the contract. They took away Flock's right to train its AI on local plate photos, capped data sharing at what state law allows, and changed audits from twice a year to twice a month. Way harder to vote no on that than on a ban, and it's still a win. Commissioner Thompson's resolution asking for a review before the ARC Center goes live is that same kind of thing, and it's still on the agenda.

WATCH OUT FOR THIS. Harrisonburg in Virginia voted 4-0 to end their contract and then never passed a rule saying the council has to approve future surveillance deals. The group there says out loud they don't think it's finished. Ask for that rule at the same meeting, not later on.

Being straight with you: out of the twelve, only El Cerrito and Syracuse are ones where you can actually confirm the cameras came down. Voting to end it and the poles coming down are two different things. Stanford just dropped Flock and is putting in a different plate reader company instead. And whatever happens with the 270, the cameras already up stay up.

One thing you've got going for you that most places don't. This isn't a left or right fight where you are. Your county mayor called the cameras a threat to privacy and civil liberties, and Tim Burchett, who filed the bill in Congress to defund them, used to be your county mayor. Most of the places that won had that going on too.

If you want me to look something up before the meeting, like a county about your size, or a sheriff's office making the same arguments KCSO is making, or the exact wording of a contract change that actually passed, just ask and I'll find it and post it with the link.

Full list by town: flockinghell.com/reports

Someone here asked me last week what got said in the towns that actually killed their Flock contracts. They had a hearing coming up. I answered in a comment and it turned out to be the most useful thing I've written here, so this is the fuller version somewhere people can find it.

The thing that surprised me going through all ten: almost none of them won on "surveillance is bad". They won on a specific failure the council couldn't wave away.

FEDERAL AND OUT-OF-STATE ACCESS. Strongest by a distance. El Cerrito voted 3-2 not to renew after it emerged federal agencies had queried the city's data and the police department didn't know it was happening. In Salem MA the ACLU found loopholes letting immigration enforcement search local records. Both contracts are gone. If you ask one question at your hearing, ask who can query your town's data and whether anyone has ever audited it.

COST, for the councillors who don't care about privacy. Killingworth CT was paying $14,600/yr for four cameras and the First Selectman said flatly they "had not added any value to local policing efforts". That argument reaches people the privacy argument doesn't.

STATE LAW, if you have it. Richland WA switched theirs off rather than risk non-compliance when Washington's SB 6002 took effect. Worth checking what's pending in your legislature, because it does the work for you.

THE FALLBACK if cancellation fails. Idaho Falls kept their cameras but amended the contract: stripped Flock's right to train its AI on local plate images, limited data sharing to what state law allows, and moved audits from twice-yearly to twice-monthly. Much harder for a council to vote against than "cancel it", and it's a real win.

ONE TRAP. Harrisonburg voted 4-0 to terminate but declined to pass an ordinance requiring council approval for future surveillance contracts. The local group said publicly they don't consider it finished. Ask for the ordinance at the same meeting, not later.

Four things worth adding since I first wrote this:

1. The Washington Post published an investigation on Aug 2 finding at least 50 officers charged with or accused of misusing plate reader systems. Flock's was involved in 46 of the 50, and 26 of those cases involved tracking a wife, girlfriend, ex-partner or an ex's new partner. That's a count now, not a hypothetical.

2. 404 Media reported this week that Wisconsin police ran a man's plate, established his vehicle "travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source state for marijuana as it is legal there", and used that lawful interstate travel as part of the probable cause to search his car. No misuse alleged. The system did what it's sold to do, and the output was legal movement turned into grounds for a search. That one is useful precisely because nobody broke a rule.

3. There's an actual bill. Rep. Burchett introduced H.R. 9800 on July 21, which would bar federal agencies from buying or accessing ALPR systems and stop federal funds going to state and local ones. Text is on congress.gov. Rep. Massie has announced a second one but hasn't filed it.

4. If your fight is about pole placement rather than privacy, that route works too. A Tennessee highway safety advocate raised concerns about how poles sit relative to the road, Flock's CEO met him, and the company has now started a nationwide audit of its installations. 16 cameras already fixed in Tennessee. One person, working the road-safety angle, moved a national vendor.

Worth knowing the honest side too: of the ten, only El Cerrito and Syracuse are ones where you can confirm the hardware physically came down. A vote and a removal are different things, and some places have voted and still have cameras up. Pinal County's contract doesn't expire until the end of September.

I keep the full list with sources at flockinghell.com/reports if you want to check any of it or look for somewhere near you. Happy to dig into a specific place if it helps - that's what it's for.