Our privacy is fading.

West Palm Beach has approved 83 cameras capable of full-time CCTV surveillance, replacing the City's existing 83-camera license plate reader network.

A common defense of these systems is: "It's just monitoring traffic."

Apparently, traffic monitoring requires full-time CCTV surveillance, funding aimed at installing at least 40 more cameras on private property, an AI-capable investigative platform with automated-alert capabilities, and a state records schedule that allows ALPR location records to be retained for up to 3 years. 

That's quite a traffic system. In fact, without coverage of all of our roads, how do we know traffic is being sufficiently monitored? We should have them everywhere. Every intersection. Every neighborhood. Every road in and out of the city.

I've got nothing to hide, right?

That's the trap. Let's follow that logic further, where exactly does it end? There will always be another road without a camera, another camera that could be connected. Another database that could be integrated. Another AI feature to make the system even better. A line has to be drawn somewhere in this endless pursuit of “safety”. The problem is, every time surveillance expands, we move the line along with it.

These are only the capabilities and numbers we can document at the moment. DeFlock WPB is still requesting records to determine the full scope of West Palm Beach's surveillance infrastructure. This includes what is getting collected, how long it's kept, who can search it, where it can be shared, and what safeguards are in place against misuse. 

Fusus, used by the City's camera-sharing program, offers AI search and automated-alert capabilities. That does not establish which AI features are enabled locally. The police camera-sharing FAQ describes exterior, public-facing views and incident-based access, rather than 24/7 monitoring.

The three-year figure is the state's general ALPR maximum, with exceptions for records that must be kept under another schedule. It is not a verified West Palm Beach retention period.

The online discourse and news coverage of Flock cameras yields plenty of alarming statistics. Proving those statistics locally is difficult, and national numbers don't tell you exactly what's happening on our streets. DeFlock WPB aims to find out what is happening here, document what we can prove, and keep locals informed.

Flock cameras aren't the only form of surveillance, and removing Flock tomorrow wouldn't make this problem disappear.

West Palm Beach has already approved more surveillance capability that does not involve Flock.

Drawing the line means putting limits on the network, whoever sells the cameras.

We are asking Mayor Keith A. James and the West Palm Beach City Commission, including in their roles governing the CRA, to:

Pause discretionary expansion of City-controlled surveillance networks until a public surveillance policy is adopted, and review existing contracts and integrations before making further commitments.
Publish the network's scope, capabilities, costs, contracts, integrations, and rules for access and sharing, with legally required redactions explained.
Adopt and enforce written limits on collection, searches, access, and voluntary sharing; set the shortest justified, legally permitted retention periods for each type of data, with deletion when those periods expire and documented exceptions for required preservation.
Require access logs, regular independent audits, consequences for misuse, and annual public reporting on use, sharing, costs, and compliance.
Require advance public disclosure, an opportunity for public comment, and a separate Commission vote before material expansions, new surveillance capabilities or integrations, and surveillance contract renewals. Use the CRA Board process where CRA approval is required.

Sign the petition to draw the line. 

Website - deflockwpb.org

Instagram - @deflockwpb