- Union residents questioned Boone County Sheriff’s officials about privacy, surveillance and data collection associated with Flock cameras.
- The sheriff’s office has an agreement for 20 Flock license plate readers but has not installed any cameras or paid the company.
- Sheriff’s officials said no camera locations have been finalized, including within Union, as the department weighs public concerns.
Boone County communities are grappling with the use of Flock cameras amid growing public concerns over surveillance, privacy and data collection.
With that in mind, the Union City Commission and Boone County Sheriff’s Office held a public discussion Wednesday on Flock Safety’s automated license plate reader system, giving residents an opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns about the technology.
Flock cameras are manufactured by Atlanta-based Flock Safety, which has recently come under fire over its surveillance technology and data-collection practices.
The Boone County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement services in Union, which does not operate its own police department. As a result, decisions about whether to install the proposed ALPR cameras within Union would ultimately rest with the sheriff’s office.
The Union City Commission hosted Boone County Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer Philip Ridgell and Maj. Jason Noel to discuss the agency’s use of Flock cameras.
Noel said Florence is currently the only Boone County municipality with Flock cameras installed, although some private entities also operate cameras along Dixie Highway and U.S. 42. Florence announced on Sept. 10 that it would temporarily suspend its use of Flock cameras citywide.
In June, the Boone County Sheriff’s Office entered into an agreement with Flock Safety to purchase and install 20 license plate readers: 17 Falcon cameras and three long-range readers. However, Noel said the Boone County Sheriff’s Office has not installed any Flock cameras or made any payments under the agreement. Essentially, the rollout has been paused due to intensifying public scrutiny.
“We haven’t done anything with Flock right now,” Noel said. “We’re in a waiting pattern to see, one, what the community feels about it, how the sheriff’s office is going to handle it, some stricter guidelines from Flock, and then moving from there, seeing where we stand before we invest and put anything into the ground and start utilizing it.”
Ridgell told the commission that the Boone County Sheriff’s Department’s use of license plate readers is not new. From around 2010 to 2019, the department used vehicle-mounted license plate readers under a regional grant. Once the grant expired, the department ceased using the cameras, he said.
From the Boone County Sheriff’s Department’s perspective, the cameras were meant to increase operational efficiency. Ridgell said the technology could be used to help find stolen vehicles, missing people and people with dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Ridgell acknowledged the commission’s and public’s concerns about privacy, surveillance, and data collection.
“This is one of those tools, admittedly, that allows for greater efficiency in responding to certain types of crimes,” Ridgell said. “Now, with the way that it’s utilized, I think it’s an important point too, because there’s what the company does that’s beyond our control, and I think that that’s why a lot of agencies are pausing to better understand what Flock Safety is or is not really doing from our perspective at the sheriff’s office.”
Much of the conversation centered around safeguards the sheriff’s office could establish if the agreement moves forward. Ridgell said the department has considered restricting access to data collected by ALPRs to higher-ranking personnel, requiring authorization for searches, and limiting how long it retains data.
In addition, he said the department could potentially restrict other law enforcement agencies’ access to Boone County data, rather than automatically participating in a broader information-sharing network.
Union Commissioner Doug Bine expressed skepticism about the technology, arguing that residents have not consented to increased surveillance or the collection of data about their movements.
“My point is, the healthcare company – they get that data from me because I give it to them,” Bine said. “This, they’re not getting that data from me because I give it to them. They’re getting it because I move from A to B.”
Union resident Dustin Brown’s reservations came from a more philosophical perspective, asking the officers whether the increased efficiency offered by ALPR technology would be worth the loss of the community’s trust.
“If you lost the community but gained a marginal fraction of efficiency, would you consider it worth it?” he asked.
Ridgell said the department has not finalized any camera locations, including within Union. For now, he said the sheriff’s office will continue operating without ALPR cameras as it weighs concerns over privacy, security and public trust.
