Virginia: Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?

Kathy Cohen said that after investigating the cameras she concluded no city should have them, and that she would like to see them removed because she does not think they increase public safety.

Danny Clawson said he is clearly opposed to Flock and Raven operating in Roanoke and said the city should invest in community-based violence prevention instead of surveillance.

Moon Reynolds said the devices were placed without proper City Council approval and that she does not support surveillance technology that infringes on privacy without clear oversight, transparency and accountability.

Moore said he does not support the use of Flock cameras or listening devices and that the city's approach encroaches on residents' right to privacy, while saying he is open to other traffic-safety options.

Marko said license-plate reader systems capture data on people who have done nothing wrong, that the opportunity for abuse outweighs the benefit, and that Roanoke can stay safe without that surveillance infrastructure.

Rep. Jennifer McClellan said technology like Flock can be a useful tool in legitimate investigations but should be carefully reviewed, with significant public input, before implementation, and that any use must follow the Fourth Amendment.

Robert "Family Man" Murray said Flock, Axon and similar license plate reader products are often misused, and that until they are properly governed their benefits are outweighed by civil rights violations.

Ben Cline said any Virginia municipality using Flock's technology should stop, and that Americans have a constitutional right to live free from unchecked government surveillance.

Beth Macy said Virginia communities should not use Flock cameras or keep the personal data they record, citing inappropriate use and installation in many localities.