The City of Boulder is behind schedule in selecting a vendor to operate its automatic license plate reader network. The decision could replace more than 40 cameras supplied by Flock, a company facing growing scrutiny over privacy and law enforcement access to its data.
The delay comes as surveillance and privacy are emerging as issues in Boulder’s November city election. Two mayoral candidates have already called for the city council to exercise more authority over the Flock contract.
Flock cameras record vehicles as they pass, capturing license plate numbers and identifying details such as vehicle color, bike racks and bumper stickers. In Boulder, 30 days of a vehicle’s location data are searchable by police departments across Colorado without a warrant.
The city has faced pushback over privacy concerns and ICE’s ability to access Flock data. In May, two Boulder residents sued the city over its Flock contract, alleging the cameras amount to warrantless mass surveillance. Dozens of cities across the country have canceled their contracts with the company.
In response to the criticism, the city opened a competitive bidding process in April, inviting other companies to provide automatic license plate reader cameras. The city’s request for proposals said the city would select a shortlist of vendors and test their cameras at an intersection between June and August, then choose a winner by Sept. 15.
That pilot never occurred, and the city will not select a vendor in September, according to City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde.
“We are still working through both our process and our path forward, and we expect to have more to share with you and the community later this month,” Rivera-Vandermyde told Boulder Reporting Lab, adding that staff understood license plate readers were of “significant and particular interest to our community.”
“Our process has slowed because we are considering how to balance operational efficiency and effectiveness with the community input, transparency, and Council oversight these important decisions deserve.”
Although the bidding process began in response to criticism of Flock, privacy advocates say their concerns extend to all automatic license plate reader systems, regardless of the company operating them.
“It doesn’t matter which company has its creepy cameras in your neighborhood; they all have the same problems: a lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation into how they collect, store, and use our data, and how to hold public and private actors accountable if they abuse it,” the ACLU wrote in a recent post.
Amid mounting backlash, Flock announced changes to its platform this week after The Washington Post documented at least 50 instances in which officers were accused of improperly using license plate reader systems to track romantic partners, relatives and others. The company will shorten its standard data-retention period from 30 days to seven and require law enforcement agencies to use audit tools designed to flag suspicious searches.
Several Flock cameras have also been vandalized in Boulder, as vandalism targeting automatic license plate cameras appears to be increasing in cities across the country. At Table Mesa Drive and Moorhead Avenue, for example, a Flock camera has been sawed off its pole.
Politics and Flock
The city manager’s office decided to renew the city’s contract with Flock in March, with a new provision allowing the city to exit the contract without penalty with 30 days’ notice. The office will also choose the winner of the new bidding process.
Deputy City Manager Chris Meschuk told the Boulder City Council in March that the city’s Flock contract is an administrative matter overseen by the city manager, meaning the council has no direct say over the contract. The city attorney added that the council could establish broader surveillance and privacy policies to guide future contracts. Rivera-Vandermyde said city staff “value and seek to include community voices and input from council members” so their decisions align with the expectations of residents and elected officials.
“City Council sets the overarching, citywide approach and high-level policy direction for how technology is used in Boulder,” Rivera-Vandermyde said. “We don’t make operational decisions in a vacuum.”
So far, the council has not taken up those policy questions.
But surveillance and privacy are expected to become issues in Boulder’s November city election. In announcing their campaigns for mayor, Aquiles La Grave, a political newcomer, and Councilmember Taishya Adams both said they want the city council to exercise more authority over the Flock contract.
State Sen. Judy Amabile, who represents Boulder, also said she plans to reintroduce legislation that would place guardrails on how much data collected by Flock and similar companies can be searched without a warrant. A similar bill failed last year following opposition from law enforcement.
This shouldn’t even be a debate in Boulder. We are town with a history of celebrating freedom, individuality, and with an IQ that knows what it really means when police and government want “operational efficiency and effectiveness” in its surveillance tools of the People. End all Flock-like contracts and surveillance. Now. I promise, we will survive. (Looking at you, Aquiles).
i would say the issue is not finding a new vendor, but getting rid of all surveillance cameras (call them flock, call them axon, call them whatever) as they are def a violation of our fourth amendment rights to privacy & there is a 7% false-positive rate with flock cameras, & it is virtually impossible to get a false charge rectified: https://substack.com/@justindeschamps/note/c-298925015?r=5nmfh&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Let’s dock flock before they put us all in lock blocks and knock out the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution mock-doc. In other words, sock it to ’em.
We have no expectation of privacy in public. Act as if whatever you do would be on the front page of BRL. It’s mind boggling that everyday citizens would side with criminals in this argument, but here we are.
Who’s siding with criminals? I — and many others — do not want to be tracked by the government. Simple as that.
You need to stop the fear mongering and false associations, eg. we don’t support Flock and government surveillance, we support crime.
@MX So you’d be OK if, every day, the BRL posted surveillance video on their front page of you entering and exiting your front door? Or maybe you’d feel that’s too much surveillance to feel justified – but HOW MUCH is too much? Where would you draw the line?
You mean like that criminal woman in Texas, who was followed over 300 miles by flock as she left the state to get an abortion???
MX, no expectation of privacy in public is not equal to a timestamped, permanent database of your person, bike, car, skateboard, etc. being analyzed by an AI system with clear security issues and known inherent racial-profiling flaws.
And the “nothing to hide” is such a tired logical fallacy.
I totally agree with Sky Noble’s logical comments. Well-said.
The city manager wants this contract, or something similar, to continue. She has unilateral control over whether or not to sign any contract – so she can say all day she values the input of the community and council but that’s clearly not what she values most. I love how Teresa says council can have some influence over “future” contracts if they want to establish broad policies that would speak to surveillance, for example, but please sit down and be quiet now. Council, not wanting to rock the boat, failed to bring this matter to the CAC.
The continual deference and acquiescence of city council to city staff is the underlying problem here. Even Winer and Wallach, the most conservative members of city council (one no longer on council) would not dream of standing up against the agenda of the city manager. Certainly our mayor would not stand up. Council members are far more likely to praise and gush over city staff like they are children winning achievement awards. This election in November will be a watershed moment for Boulder.
What this article lacks is an acknowledgment that the quiet implementation of AI-powered comprehensive surveillance represents a massive increase in government power. That the city would begin using this massive new power while pretending that it is merely an administrative decision, one that does not require public input or consent, is itself a troubling display of bureaucratic tyranny.
What’s going on in East Boulder County??? Suddenly there are flock cameras everywhere! Lafayette, Erie, unincorporated Boulder!!! Who is responsible? Who do we speak with?
http://www.deflock.org is full of helpful info, including how to map flock-free routes, but it’s becoming impossible to do.
GET THE FLOCK OUTTA HERE!!!
As I write this, crews are finishing up installation of a new flock camera on Emma Street by the entrance to Waneka Lake. There’s also a flock camera on Emma Street by the parking lot of The Post restaurant. As the city of Boulder ponders what to do, unincorporated East Boulder and Lafayette are expanding surveillance. DEFLOCK.ORG
What was scary when my family visited China was the knowledge that we were constantly being tracked. A police state. It wasn’t a big deal as we had nothing to hide. But it made China feel like a worse place to be compared to the US. So now the US does the same thing. Except the US has lousy infrastructure and inferior urban planning. And our technological advantage is being squandered. How times have changed…for the worse.
From the RFP:
“The City has identified the need to explore options for the automated license plate reader (ALPR) program. This system will be used as a force multiplier for officers in the field and provide critical information to generate leads in criminal investigations. There may be a future need to also purchase mobile license plate readers that can integrate with this fixed ALPR system.”
Then in the next paragraph:
“The City prioritizes the fundamental right to privacy. The ideal vendor is one that treats privacy with the sanctity it demands and who demonstrates those values in practice. Furthermore, the City wants to ensure that our contractors exemplify the highest degree of transparency, accountability ,and integrity.”
We’re being sold the lie that the only way to solve “crime” is to relinquish our privacy and I just don’t have any faith that the City Manager making $342,991.17 is making decisions in the best interests of the residents and workers of and the visitors to this city.
If the data was encrypted in a way that you needed 3-5 people to search, one of them a judge, one of them a member of the public,valid warrant, harsh penalties for abuse, and clear whistleblower provision, I might get behind it.
I rarely comment on news articles, but this issue hit’s close to home. My 15 yo son was the BHS student who was hit and run on April 26, 2024 (night before CU Spring Game) crossing Canyon near the bus station. Auto-pedestrian. He broke both legs, requiring 4.5 hours of surgery, but it could have been much worse. A homeless person picked him off the street, another one called 911. I received that call at 10:20 p.m. that no parent wants to receive–meet us at BCH. The driver just gunned it and fled.
It was a combination of factors: driver driving too fast for conditions & evading instead of stopping; son not in sidewalk; but mostly the weather. Low cloud ceiling; drizzle and rain.
Rather than criticize BPD about not catching the driver, the BDP Sergeant/detective shared with me some video, we could almost make out the color and make, not a year but that was about it–the weather. BPD shared some limited Flock information (i.e. where they cross-linked certain intersections) whereby the driver could escape. Overall, BPD used the information in the correct manner. My heart was warmed that they took the matter seriously conducting a thorough investigation, and the Sergeant could speak from the heart (or look me in the eye if we were in person) as he explained all the exhaustive steps they used in trying to locate the vehicle /driver.
In my opinion license plate technology (Flock or whatever vendor BPD/City Counsel goes with) is a VERY necessary law enforcement tool. If rouge officers use it for nefarious purposes as some examples have been cited, those officers need to be punished (i.e. losing their job, possible criminal prosecution). Those cameras and other camera technologies, should not be used to fill the public coffers with $$ through video tickets.
As to the right to privacy, we have a right to privacy in our homes and other areas, however driving on public roads is privilege not a right–thus the right to privacy is not all-encompassing. The lawsuit alleging a warrantless search is a joke. Law enforcement can use any surveillance without a warrant in public areas.
In Boulder, just on U.S. 36 alone we have had three shootings: one unsolved murder; the recent road rage shootout; and the CSP shootout, whereby a driver shot at a stopped CSP car, and then the Trooper won the shootout, as the assailant backed his truck up for more. License plate technology was likely used for the road rage shootout; would have been used when the crazy tried to kill the CSP officer if he fled; and maybe caught the unsolved murderer.
On ICE and cooperation with other law enforcement agencies, the City has it’s sanctuary policy and that is-what-it-is, so it will be followed. However, in many other matters like the North Metro Drug Taskforce, kidnappings, missing persons, road rage, drag racing, utterly reckless driving etc… we do need time of cooperation between state/county jurisdictions and the Feds; and they need the necessary tools to to keep our citizenry safe. This is a matter of safety, not an invasion of privacy in private areas.
I trust that BPD, the City Manager and City Counsel can get onto the same page for any outstanding issue–they should agree on whatever guardrails are necessary. Unfortunately, Boulder County is becoming more dangerous, not less as are our roads.