A city councilor recently asked for a write up of some of my primary concerns with these surveillance cameras for him to consider, so I provided him this open letter. You can repost and use as you wish if you want. Also share this page so that folks can receive more updates on this issue in our community.

Please also be reminded of the Flock forum this Thursday Jan 16 at 6PM at Lyon Chapel on OKWU campus.

An Open Letter to the City Councilors of Bartlesville

Honorable City Councilors,

We find ourselves at a critical decision point where our commitment to privacy, security, and civil liberties is being tested by the deployment of Flock cameras in our community. These devices, while advertised for their utility in law enforcement, pose significant risks that we must address head-on. Among several reasons, here are a few for why we should reconsider their continued use:

1. Unlike traditional surveillance systems, Flock cameras do not store data locally. Instead, all footage is transmitted to a cloud database located far from Bartlesville, completely out of our jurisdiction and control. This architecture inherently risks data replication during transit and permanent storage in larger, government-controlled databases under the guise of national security, undermining our privacy rights. Because of Edward Snowden, we know replication tools like this exist and it's not hard to imagine their abuse.
2. The capabilities of Flock cameras extend far beyond simple license plate reading. The ultra-high-definition footage they capture can be repurposed for extensive surveillance profiling, aided by virtually unlimited computational power once centrally stored and aggregated. This easily leads to comprehensive movement histories of our citizens, far beyond the scope of what has been disclosed to us as the intended use.
3. The legal framework surrounding these Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) is outdated, not keeping pace with technological advancements. Recent judicial decisions, like the June 2024 ruling by a Norfolk Circuit Court judge, have declared the collection of location data by Flock cameras as a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring warrants for such data to be admissible in court. This ruling underscores the legal uncertainties and potential Fourth Amendment violations we face with these devices.

Moreover, the recent "accidental" data breach affecting Ascension patients, many from our own community, illustrates the tangible risks of data mishandling. Similarly, the potential for these cameras to be used for political persecution, as seen with previous abuses by law enforcement agencies during the January 6 protests, cannot be ignored.

The urgency to act is clear. We must safeguard the privacy and rights of our citizens from being eroded by technology that is not only ahead of our legal protections but also potentially at odds with the very principles of liberty we uphold. I urge you to consider the broader implications of Flock cameras. May we proactively choose to protect our community's constitutional rights by staying far from that line over expediency.

If something feels close to the line—especially on a subject where history demonstrates numerous egregious abuses—it probably is.

Let's lead by example and opt for solutions that respect both security and privacy. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Let's make Bartlesville a model of responsible, privacy-conscious governance.

Respectfully,
Josh Lock