Emma Curtis says Flock cameras risk more harm than good
Lexington council member running for reelection in District 4
“I think we owe our residents a robust discussion about whether or not these cameras are still truly keeping us safe I believe based on all of the information that I have seen both prior and during my time in office, that Flock is not a corporation that acts in good faith or is worthy of our collective trust. I also believe that these cameras have far greater potential for collective harm than they did for collective good.”
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Spectrum News 1 reported on public comment about Flock cameras at a late-August Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council meeting.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
At an Aug. 27 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council meeting, several public commenters asked the city to end its agreement with Flock Safety. Spectrum News reported that Curtis was the only council member to address the cameras.
After the quotation
Curtis also said she does not believe the city's police department has misused the cameras. Spectrum News reported that Lexington's most recent Flock use audit found no improper searches by its officers.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is whether networked license-plate reader systems such as Flock should exist and be used. Curtis said Flock is not worthy of the public's trust and that the cameras have far greater potential for harm than good, a judgment against the cameras themselves rather than against misuse by local police. She asked for a public discussion instead of naming a specific step, which is the limit of this label.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Flock Safety
Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Ohioans should not have their movements routinely tracked, photographed, and stored simply for driving on public roads.”Read statement
“Tennesseans should be free from a surveillance state.”Read statement
“We need to restore real limits, real oversight, and real due process.”Read statement