Full transcript
elected.
I want to get to all the speakers
tonight. So
let it
um I think Councilwoman Green sort of
spoke to this in her comments around
audits and within all of this
conversation around audits. We thought
it was important to create a tool that
would track how in fact users are using
the right. So within this what it takes
place is this will automatically alert
an administrator if atypical search or
activity is taking place within on the
platform. So let's say a license plate
is being searched over 10 12 times
that's automatically alert
develop this you'll start to hear from
more and more borrow tools that we're
creating inhouse to ensure that these
products are being used in the way that
No, there's no
specification back.
Um, coming up here very very soon,
you'll see an additional uh offense type
tool that you heard DC Meers speak to.
So, we'll be able to
turn on a filter specific to an offense
type for how that particular camera is
being used. So if a community does not
want uh LPR data being used for specific
offense types, then PD can say, "Hey,
we're not using LPR data for these
specific offense types." That's a new
tool that we'll be rolling out um this
week actually. So I wanted to ensure
that we had a conversation around guard
rails that we started to put in place um
I would say starting last year. um which
you saw in the audit from CP as well and
these these guard rules will continue.
This is not something that in the midst
of these sorts of conversations, these
tough conversations that we're having
that they just stop there and we be
responding. No, we want to be proactive
in this. We want to have these
conversations. We want to ensure that
we're creating our rails that align once
again with the communities in which we
serve or look to serve. So, we're open
to additional ideas. to have
conversations with law enforcements and
community members across the country
around ways that we can improve these
these systems and we hope that we can
you have set up a system and your system
it is your company's philosophy that
your system is a system that is
available that whoever wants to use it
can use it in the manner in which they
care for Would you say that is correct?
I would say that is correct.
So if in Texas they're saying we will
use the system to track people if you
have an abortion because we believe that
that is a criminal offense. You're not
you your company that you represent is
okay with that because that is lawful
for them. Correct.
We don't have a stance on that.
The reason that I'm asking the reason
that I'm asking is because I am what I
understand to be true so we can call the
state a state is that you have a system
that you were saying if this is lawful
here and lawful here you can use the
system for whatever is lawful for
wherever you are right but understanding
if we're thinking about policies and
policies that we're putting in place
what would dictate and why would you
want to put those policies in place for
who? Because if you're not taking a
stand anywhere then is it because in you
know maybe Columbus or some other places
we want these set of regulations and
maybe over here they want these set of
regulations because I think I just want
to be clear because to the point that
council member is making right unless
it's lawmakers who are putting it in to
disrupt the system to allow for equity
and for allow for justice like what
benefit do you have if you've just
created something that you're like here
y'all can use it however you want. I
think
I mean
um I do think the different levels of
sharing is where that's addressed,
right? Um we look at the national lookup
system and we look at statewide sharing
and we look at onetoone agreements. Um
in addition to that within that onetoone
agreement we we're in a process of
creating an process um within the app
that allows for um an attestation. So
let's say you don't want you don't want
to share for non outside of uh you don't
want to share for outside of law
enforcement purposes or you want to be
specific in the language to say uh
reproductive health um immigration that
language will be in that process shared
in that one onetoone sharing account um
for that right so that's these are the
ways that we're trying to create these
guards and trying to create work streams
to ensure that um that's understood.
People can use the system however it is
they want to use it or allowing for some
sort of guard rails. But I think again
it just brings me back to the point of
if it's open for people to use it, how
they can use it. Even if we're putting
in those guardrails, you're putting in
those guardrails cuz other people are
asking for it and you're seeing a
problem in how some people want to to um
essentially adjust the data and
information that people can get. I guess
my other question is
is it like cell phone companies, right,
where cell phone companies need to get a
warrant to get the data from my system.
Are you as guarded with your data in
that or is it that regulated or could an
entity come and compel that data from
block?
We don't sell data. Um we use AWS cloud
similar to Verizon and others. Um so
that's where data is housed. Um we don't
own the data. It's owned by the city.
Um, so
we can certainly do things to make us
safer without sacrificing all of the
rights that make America what it is. And
it seems to me that if somebody in Ohio
can have their license plate plucked out
by somebody in New Mexico for reasons
unbeknownst to anybody, then we have a
serious problem. And if you saw what
happened in Reynoldsburg, one of those
cops there, according to media reports,
had to resign because he was um keeping
an eye on his ex-girlfriend using the
flock cameras. So clearly, if there
aren't some guard rails in place, this
is dangerous technology.
What is the danger here with the
crossovers of ICE and immigration? What
is the danger here with the crossovers
of ICE and immigration? Well, you know,
the city said that they weren't going to
allow ICE to have access and and the
audit shows that they accessed it more
than uh I believe 15,000 times. So,
Columbus police are not the federal
government and they should not be doing
the federal government's job for us.
THEY SAY you say.
YEAH.
GET OUT.
THE MOST DANGEROUS THING about flock is
that we don't know where it's being used
and by whom. Uh
they can be they can be accessed by
basically anyone around the country. And
we've already seen the city of Columbus
be untruthful about what they were going
to do with the cameras. And we've had
the problems in Reynoldsburg where two
cops had to resign for accessing them uh
improperly. So, I think we need to get a
handle on this because this is just
another chipping away at our rights and
people are becoming desensitized to it.
So, we're out here hopefully to get the
city of Columbus to see the error of
their ways and uh do like Dayton did and
cover up, dismantle, and hopefully
cancel their contracts with Flock.
Hear our shouts. We demand you get the
flock out
here.
We demand you get
accessible by any law enforcement agency
across the country. What we're building
here is nationwide surveillance. And
that just that screams big brother. And
we've been going down this road really
since after 9/11. And I think that
people have just become immune to it.
And with everything else that's
happening in the country right now, I
think people are waking up to the
dangers of some of these things. And um
so hopefully we can put a stop to it
before the train leaves the station.
Council
[music]
are too little too late. Over 15,000 of
our immigrant community members have
been impacted by the gross oversightes
on the part of the city council. Our
neighboring communities have been
stalked by law enforcement assessing the
data database unlawfully.
Many more of us remain in harm's way. We
are not here to plate. We're here to
demand the protection we deserve WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY MONITORING.
WHO DO WE HATE?
SURVEILLANCE.
Who do we hate?
WHO DO WE HATE?
WHO'S GOT the
Well, we we it's not tolerable for any
of us on council to see that type of
misuse, especially from law enforcement.
So, we're going to make sure that, you
know, people are held accountable, that
there are guard rails put into place so
that if something like that were to
happen again, then um you know, it'd get
caught and certainly there would be
ramifications for that.
People want to have the contract just
yet. Again, I think everything's on the
table. Um, it's be, you know, kind of
shortsided for me to say that that's not
on the table. I'm just one of nine,
though, and so this is an opportunity
for myself and all of our colleagues to
learn exactly what's happened and what
is in place to make sure that those
things don't happen again. What's your
timeline for making a decision or
bringing something to council?
Again, I think a lot will be determined
tonight during the hearing just to hear,
you know, where we're at and to feel the
comfort level and then we'll regroup and
talk amongst ourselves and see what
what's next.
Have you talked to other city council
members? Well, certainly that, you know,
just answering questions, that sort of
thing about what tonight's hearing is
all about, but uh we've not, you know,
formally gotten together and had
discussions about.
What's your personal stance on?
I I am neutral at this point. I mean,
you know, I hear all sides of it. We
certainly know that it's helped to solve
crimes, murders, and, you know, find
missing people persons and and things
along those lines. But I also don't
like, you know, people looking up
spouses and and using it for immigration
purposes. That's not something that
holds our values on council and
certainly not my values. Well, at this
time, I I I don't really have a lot of
concerns cuz I think a lot of the things
that were problems in the past have been
addressed by the division. But again, I
want to hear them say that tonight and
share that with the community and and
and evaluate it after that.
Do you feel like time is of the essence,
especially with these Haitian immigrants
living in our communities who are have
lost their status?
Well, certainly every there are we have
I think around 70 cameras today and
there's there's over 500 in the city of
Columbus. So, it's not just us that you
know that these things are watching you
know that the cameras are are out there.
I got to make sure I say that right. Um,
these are not just our cameras that are
in our community today. So, we really
want to get the reporting out.
Everything is of the essence because we
do not want any bad these used for any
bad purposes like, you know, immigration
purposes for, you know, things that are
not legitimate reasons in course of an
investigation.
Would you consider any legislation
limiting these privatelyowned cameras
within the city of Columbus? I think
everything's on the table. I don't know
what we legally can do as far as what
the state would allow us to do. So, at
this point, I don't have a comment on
that.
Okay.
I understand the concern of us as I
myself make sure that I holding our
officers accountable and if there is
that is what our job is to ensure that
we're doing everything possible to make
sure that that is dealt with and
addressed. I'm going with the um the
charges, the crimes. Let's talk about
missing person. On May 11 and June 11th
of 2026, clock was utilized to locate
two different elderly missing
individuals. In May, a missing
88-year-old with dementia was located in
London, Ohio. And in June, a missing
17-year-old with dementia was located in
Dublin, Ohio. Each got a silver and
black was used to locate the vehicles,
enabling a safe recovery. These are just
a few examples of how value block has
been holding our investigators off and
answers and closes the bounds from their
victims. I believe there should be
policies, oversight, accountability,
making sure technology is used properly,
but I also believe we have to look at
what this technology can actually do for
our community. As someone who has spent
nearly 30 years working
on my drive to city hall tonight, I
passed 12 ARP cameras in 15 minutes
despite being a law-abiding citizen and
having done absolutely nothing to
warrant government scrutiny. Apparently
here in Columbus, simply traveling
throughout our city is enough to justify
surveillance. You all spoke at length
today about trusting the safeguards
surrounding this technology while
willfully ignoring a growing list of
examples showing exactly why we
shouldn't. That includes the confusion
during your own testimony today over who
who can even access these cameras.
Dayton suspended its ALPR program after
its safeguards failed. Reynoldsburg just
lost multiple officers because they
ignored safeguards. Do a quick Google
search to find repeated violations of
these safeguards all around the state
and the rest of our country. So don't
pretend our concerns are hypothetical or
overwhelmed. My own experience My own
experience has given me even less
confidence. Well ahead of this meeting,
I submitted a public records request
seeking information associated with my
own license plate. A month has passed
now, and I still don't know whether the
city will even provide me with those
records, let alone when that may happen.
Hell, for as evil as Meta and Twitter
are, even they can provide users with
access to their data within a reasonable
time frame. Think about that imbalance
for a second. Your system can collect
and catalog my movements. Law
enforcement, outside agencies, and Lord
knows who else can search it in seconds.
But apparently when I ask that system if
whether that system has been used to
search me, the city can or will not give
me an answer, can't or will not give me
an answer to that question. That should
terrify every person.
City police and block officials may
argue that our rights don't prevent us
from being recorded in public. But being
seen driving down the road is not the
same as cameras across an entire city
recording our vehicles, linking them
together, and making them searchable.
Connect enough dots and you don't just
have our license plates. You have
patterns in our lives, where we worship,
where we receive our medical care, who
we visit, whether we attend certain
political functions. History has shown
us what happens when governments start
maintaining lists about where people go
and who they associate and what
communities they belong to. And somehow
this went even a step worse. The city
doesn't even control their own
surveillance infrastructure. It's
operated through a private company with
its own corporate interests. If anyone
in this council genuinely believes that
this kind of level of surveillance is
harmless, I will say after this meeting
with you tonight and exchange my contact
information because I will personally
see to it that I pay out of pocket for
an ALPR camera outside of your own
residence for your own safety.
We have to come down here to prove that
we deserve privacy from our government.
If the fear of solving crime justifies
surveilling innocent people, then
repeated proven abuses of that system
should matter too. Every person who
touched this block grant should be
required to answer for every improper
search, data leak, and unauthorized
disclosure of our information. They
should disclose all communications
involving this contract because I
frankly have a hard time believing that
any sensible person without ulterior
motive looked at this level of private
surveillance and thought it was a
healthy government balance and not a
constitutional violation. The problem is
not. The problem is giving the
government the ability to systematically
[music] track incident systems in in the
first place, [clears throat] remove
flock from the city, and keep mass LPR
out of our city because eventually
law-abiding citizens may stop asking
politely and take care of themselves.
[cheering and applause]