Lambert supports continued Flock camera use in Dakota County
Dakota County Sheriff's Office sergeant and candidate for Dakota County sheriff
“With Flock Safety’s pending updates and improved data security and management, I would support their continued use within Dakota County. Flock cameras can be a vital tool for law enforcement to identify and locate unlicensed drivers, stolen vehicles, stolen license plates, missing persons, vulnerable adults, abductions, wanted persons, KOPS (Keeping Our Police Safe) Alerts, Amber Alerts, and individuals who may be in crisis.”
Source and context
Interview
About this source
West St. Paul Reader questionnaire in which both Dakota County sheriff candidates answered the same written questions, including one on Flock cameras.
Before the quotation
The West St. Paul Reader asked both Dakota County sheriff candidates whether they support the continued use of Flock cameras, citing data privacy concerns and data sharing with the federal government.
After the quotation
Lambert went on to describe Flock's recommended 7-day data retention period, required case codes and an independent security review, and wrote that the issue will require trust from the community, which he would build through honesty, transparency and dialogue.
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 readers such as Flock should exist and be used. Lambert says he would support continued Flock use in Dakota County and calls the cameras a vital tool for finding stolen vehicles, missing people and wanted persons. He cites Flock's own coming security changes rather than setting conditions of his own, so Defended or excused fits.
- 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