My family and I have lived in Bartlesville for over 15 years, cherishing the privacy and respect our city traditionally stands for. We aren't a surveillance state, but a community. Recently, our city decided to install Flock surveillance cameras—a move that we feel threatens the privacy and frankly common sense values this town has respected for so long. Such measures are always sold under the auspices of a crime-free utopia, but these are mere bait and switch tactics.

On September 3, Bartlesville City Council, perhaps unwittingly, approved a contract with Flock Safety—one of many topics often buried in the consent docket that demands more rigorous scrutiny.

I've spent over 15 years in the technology and analytics space, where my role is to dissect data to uncover truths. Data has an extraordinary power to reveal insights, often from sources initially unrelated to the end use. When fed through advanced algorithms, this data can tell stories we never intended or anticipated.

Imagine my shock upon discovering Flock surveillance cameras in Bartlesville, installed without public discourse or my earlier knowledge. The consent docket misleadingly described them as simple license plate readers, but these are not just readers; they are sophisticated surveillance tools. They feed into a massive warrantless database outside local control and are accessible by thousands across numerous jurisdictions.

These devices do more than just read plates; they profile every vehicle with details like make, model, color, and unique features. This means every vehicle in Bartlesville is under an invisible dragnet, curating a comprehensive movement profile.

Now, let's talk about the legal landscape. While these technologies are proliferating, they are not without challenge. Multiple lawsuits are actively contesting their legality, focusing on their invasive nature and the privacy implications of such data aggregation.

Advocates may argue these tools are essential for modern law enforcement, but let's not forget: Bartlesville has upheld public safety for over a century with traditional, constitutional methods. Our duty is not to dance on the edge of legality but to act with extreme caution, protecting our citizens' rights and setting strong precedent as technology advances further.

There is significant evidence to underline that widespread surveillance does not necessarily equate to lower crime rates. A comprehensive study published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology found no substantial evidence that CCTV systems deter crime, calling into question the effectiveness of invasive surveillance measures (Welsh, B.C., & Farrington, D.P., 2009). It’s important to remember that the installation of surveillance cameras also brings numerous privacy concerns. Our right to privacy is protected by law and should not be jeopardized under the guise of security enhancement.

Therefore, we ask this council to act decisively with an agenda item in next month’s meeting that does the following:

1. Reaffirms Bartlesville as a community committed to privacy and personal freedom, rejecting the creation of pervasive surveillance networks.
2. Terminates the contract with Flock Safety, ensuring the immediate removal of these devices, and transparently informs the public about where these cameras have been placed until their complete removal.
3. Discloses all current surveillance technologies employed by the city for public safety or compliance, ensuring transparency in our law enforcement practices.
4. Urges our neighbors in Dewey, Ramona, and the Washington County commissioners to join us in this stand, ensuring our entire region remains free from unwarranted surveillance.

I will close with the words of H.L. Mencken:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-front for the urge to rule it.”

Let's ensure that our actions today protect the freedoms of Bartlesville's residents for generations to come, instead of chasing mere safety trends.