Privacy Protections for Flock Cameras in Novi

Why I Am Concerned About Flock

I learned earlier this year that Novi purchased 10 Flock cameras in 2023. Knowing these cameras are in my community made me pay attention to reports about their use and misuse throughout the country. In particular multiple reports of Flock data being shared, accidentally or on purpose, with ICE as well as reports on ICE’s illegal activities throughout the country have made me worry for my immigrant children and my immigrant neighbors here in Novi. Some examples include:

• Officers using cameras to track romantic partners. The Institute for Justice’s compilation of license-plate-reader misuse includes a police chief used Flock to stalk his ex-girlfriend.
• Surveillance of protests and activists. An Electronic Frontier Foundation investigation found that dozens of agencies have conducted hundreds of Flock searches to find protesters and activists.
• Local data reaching federal immigration agencies without a direct sharing agreement. In Syracuse, Flock data included in 175 CPB-related searches even though the department had not entered a data-sharing agreement with those federal agencies, according to Central Current’s reporting.
• Camera feeds exposed to the internet. 404 Media found at least 60 Flock Condor cameras completely open to the public due to poor security.
• Errors that put innocent people at risk. The Institute for Justice’s database of ALPR abuse documents wrongful stops and detentions as well as deliberate misuse of this technology.

How does Novi protect residents’ privacy?

I have reviewed Novi’s contract with Flock, a short document consisting mostly of a link to the Flock Terms and Conditions, which say that Novi “grants to Flock a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to (a) use and disclose Customer Data to provide the Flock Services,” and that for any privacy violation, no matter how large, Flock’s liability is limited to a partial refund. To me, that does not sound like adequate protection.

I searched the Novi Web site for ordinances that protect residents’ privacy from this technology, similar to Detroit’s Community Input Over Government Surveillance ordinance, but I was not able to find a comparable Novi ordinance.

After watching Now You Novi’s Flock episode, I emailed Chief Zinser, who graciously shared Novi’s Flock policy. While I appreciate his openness, I remain unconvinced these policies protect us from privacy violations seen elsewhere. The policy he shared honors outside agencies’ license plate inquiries, including ICE. It does not require proactive audits of proper use, equipment security audits, or adequate IT controls for Flock’s systems.

Ordinances in Other Communities

Detroit’s surveillance ordinance requires public review, Council approval, written safeguards, and reporting on misuse; it also provides employee accountability and whistleblower protection. The California ACLU’s model ordinances offer similar protections and ongoing public oversight.

What I Am Asking Novi to Do

1. Include public input in the policy update. Hold a town hall, as other communities have, and seek input from immigrants, domestic violence survivors, and activists facing heightened privacy risks.
2. Show whether those protections work. Publish reports on access, audits, misuse, and disciplinary action.
3. Put enforceable protections into law. Establish oversight, limits on use and sharing, employee accountability, and whistleblower protection.