Flock ‘Objects to Our Removing Their Equipment’: Emails Reveal Why a Town Put Bags Over Its Flock Cameras

2026-07-22 · Source: 404media Feed · Field: Government & Public Sector — Public Policy & Governance, Public Safety & Security, Civic Technology & Smart Cities · Depth: Fundamental Awareness, short

Summary

Verona, Wisconsin faced difficulties removing three automated license plate cameras after its city council voted to stop using them. Flock, the AI surveillance company, instructed city employees not to remove the equipment and expressed uncertainty about remote disabling, leading Verona officials to cover the cameras with black plastic bags until Flock eventually removed them. Emails obtained by 404 Media via a public records request, dated July 22, 2026, detail this process, highlighting challenges cities encounter when terminating contracts with surveillance technology providers. Verona's mayor, Luke Diaz, confirmed concerns that the cameras were "100% certain" to still be working post-contract, prompting the decision to cover them to prevent continued surveillance. Flock attributed the delay to Verona's non-renewal rather than mid-term cancellation.

Key takeaway

For city officials evaluating or terminating surveillance technology contracts, ensure your agreements include explicit, enforceable clauses for equipment removal and data cessation. You should clarify vendor obligations and timelines for de-installation to avoid prolonged disputes and continued surveillance. If faced with vendor non-compliance, consider interim measures like physically disabling devices while pursuing legal or contractual remedies to protect citizen privacy and maintain control over public infrastructure.

Key insights

Cities struggle to remove surveillance cameras post-contract due to vendor resistance and legal uncertainties.

Principles

• Vendor contracts can create removal dependencies.
• Surveillance systems may remain active post-contract.
• Legal rights for device removal are often unclear.

In practice

• Physically cover cameras to prevent data collection.
• Review contract terms for equipment removal clauses.
• Utilize public records requests for vendor communications.

Topics

• Automated License Plate Readers
• Surveillance Technology
• Contract Management
• Data Privacy
• Public Records Law
• Municipal Governance

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Policy Maker, Legal Professional, Tech Journalist

Related on AIssential

• Flock's CEO Says its ALPRs Don't Do Video After Repeatedly Announcing They Can — Surveillance company CEO's public statements contradict its product's marketed capabilities and internal communications.
• Anthropic and the Pentagon are reportedly arguing over Claude usage — AI companies face pressure from the U.S. military to permit broad use of their models, sparking policy disputes.
• ‘You Will Not Speak on Flock Tonight’: County Commissioner Refuses to Let Residents Opposing Flock Speak at Meeting — Local government officials limited public discourse on controversial surveillance technology by citing procedural policies, despite significant citizen opposition and transparency concerns.
• Sadiq Khan may try to stop Scotland Yard signing Palantir contract — Public sector AI contracts face scrutiny over vendor ethics and alignment with societal values.
• I tried to wipe my digital footprint without paying for a data removal service - 5 free ways — Personal data is legally aggregated by brokers, requiring a fragmented, multi-step process for removal.
• Ring cancels surveillance partnership with Flock Safety — Resource constraints and public backlash led Ring to cancel its surveillance partnership with Flock Safety.

See Counsel's argued verdicts on the open AI decisions leaders are weighing →

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by 404media Feed.