Good afternoon, my name is Kelly Ribuffo and I am a resident of Old Towne (District 1). I strongly oppose the installation of Flock cameras in our community and ask Council to not approve this contract tonight. Flock cameras will not make our community safer, all they will do is increase invasive surveillance on residents and visitors. There are already intersection cameras around town that allow OPD to pull footage and identify vehicles if needed. While Flock may promise that the use of these cameras are be limited in scope, the fact is that there are many reported instances of data breaches and accidental granting of access to other Flock subscribing agencies. Residents have enough challenged maintaining their privacy and identity protection without this unnecessary system in place. The City needs to refocus on the needs of residents - which should be balancing the budget to restore and increase beneficial city services to the community. Flock cameras are not one of those services. Please vote NO on this item.
May 26 2026
Ryan Johnson, District 1
It's hard to believe the city council is wasting its time and money (for which the city keeps saying is scarce) on public safety snake oil. The city council needs to explain to the public-with evidence-that this expenditure has convincing evidence for its use and also how it plans to address constitutional privacy concerns and related million-dollar lawsuits. (Citations)
https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-million-dollar-lawsuits-if-council-renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html
https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20260227692233/flock-license-plate-cameras-face-class-action-lawsuit-by-gibbs-mura-a-law-group
https://www.ktvu.com/news/class-action-lawsuit-alleges-flock-license-plate-readers-violate-ca-law-privacy-residents
You're going to have to look hard for that evidence because I'm not finding it! Palo Alto published that out of the 787k unique plates read, a total of 463 searches were conducted. That's a hit rate of 0.0006, and we don't know how many of those searches resulted in convictions.
https://transparency.flocksafety.com/palo-alto-ca-pd
It's especially absurd in the literal shadow of a toxic gas leak that has led to thousands of evacuations. And the company responsible? GKN settled for nearly a million dollars for its environmental violations! Which corrupt, public-safety hazards are brewing right now here in Orange that aren't being discovered because we aren't subjecting these companies to rigorous inspections and enforcement? Where the violation fines are just a small line item in their P&L statements? Which companies are committing wage-theft and labor violations? How much money are we putting into preventing these crimes?
Instead, the Orange City council is considering burning money for a surveillance system that has resulted in:
Police officers stalking former partners (especially concerning due to my work at a rape crisis center)
Police pulling a woman out of her car at gunpoint, and doing the same to two brothers on their way to Thanksgiving dinner (separate incidents due to technical errors)
Data loss to unauthorized users, putting the city at risk of unjustified privacy violations. How does this make sense?
As journalist Tim Mackenzie stated, “The real business model for Flock is to sell fear to our local police departments so taxpayer dollars are used to lease cameras to let Flock get the thing it actually cares about: our data. WE are the product; Flock cares about making a profit, not public safety.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/ex-costa-mesa-police-officer-accused-of-using-flock-cameras-to-track-his-mistress/
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/milwaukee-police-officer-charged-flock-camera.html
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/san-francisco-woman-pulled-out-car-gunpoint-because
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/license-plate-readers-alpr-mistakes/
Let us not be conned! At minimum, you need to postpone any action on this issue until the evidence becomes irrefutably beneficial to the community at large.
Good afternoon, my name is Kelly Ribuffo and I am a resident of Old Towne (District 1). I strongly oppose the installation of Flock cameras in our community and ask Council to not approve this contract tonight. Flock cameras will not make our community safer, all they will do is increase invasive surveillance on residents and visitors. There are already intersection cameras around town that allow OPD to pull footage and identify vehicles if needed. While Flock may promise that the use of these cameras are be limited in scope, the fact is that there are many reported instances of data breaches and accidental granting of access to other Flock subscribing agencies. Residents have enough challenged maintaining their privacy and identity protection without this unnecessary system in place. The City needs to refocus on the needs of residents - which should be balancing the budget to restore and increase beneficial city services to the community. Flock cameras are not one of those services. Please vote NO on this item.
May 26 2026
Ryan Johnson, District 1
It's hard to believe the city council is wasting its time and money (for which the city keeps saying is scarce) on public safety snake oil. The city council needs to explain to the public-with evidence-that this expenditure has convincing evidence for its use and also how it plans to address constitutional privacy concerns and related million-dollar lawsuits. (Citations)
https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-million-dollar-lawsuits-if-council-renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html
https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20260227692233/flock-license-plate-cameras-face-class-action-lawsuit-by-gibbs-mura-a-law-group
https://www.ktvu.com/news/class-action-lawsuit-alleges-flock-license-plate-readers-violate-ca-law-privacy-residents
You're going to have to look hard for that evidence because I'm not finding it! Palo Alto published that out of the 787k unique plates read, a total of 463 searches were conducted. That's a hit rate of 0.0006, and we don't know how many of those searches resulted in convictions.
https://transparency.flocksafety.com/palo-alto-ca-pd
It's especially absurd in the literal shadow of a toxic gas leak that has led to thousands of evacuations. And the company responsible? GKN settled for nearly a million dollars for its environmental violations! Which corrupt, public-safety hazards are brewing right now here in Orange that aren't being discovered because we aren't subjecting these companies to rigorous inspections and enforcement? Where the violation fines are just a small line item in their P&L statements? Which companies are committing wage-theft and labor violations? How much money are we putting into preventing these crimes?
Instead, the Orange City council is considering burning money for a surveillance system that has resulted in:
Police officers stalking former partners (especially concerning due to my work at a rape crisis center)
Police pulling a woman out of her car at gunpoint, and doing the same to two brothers on their way to Thanksgiving dinner (separate incidents due to technical errors)
Data loss to unauthorized users, putting the city at risk of unjustified privacy violations. How does this make sense?
As journalist Tim Mackenzie stated, “The real business model for Flock is to sell fear to our local police departments so taxpayer dollars are used to lease cameras to let Flock get the thing it actually cares about: our data. WE are the product; Flock cares about making a profit, not public safety.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/ex-costa-mesa-police-officer-accused-of-using-flock-cameras-to-track-his-mistress/
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/milwaukee-police-officer-charged-flock-camera.html
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/san-francisco-woman-pulled-out-car-gunpoint-because
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/license-plate-readers-alpr-mistakes/
Let us not be conned! At minimum, you need to postpone any action on this issue until the evidence becomes irrefutably beneficial to the community at large.