To the editor:

Recent public discussions about Flock camera surveillance in Bristol focus primarily on questions about personal safety versus individual liberties. Community discussions about Flock usage often omit consideration of the complete absence of federal, Rhode Island or local regulatory frameworks governing the use of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs). This absence contributes to significant municipal liabilities for Bristol and, by extension, for all Bristolians.

Municipal risks related to Flock camera surveillance include potential privacy and civil rights violations, unauthorized data sharing, Public Records Act violations and problems with data storage, security, and misuse. An ongoing federal lawsuit in Virginia alleges ALPR use is a warrantless surveillance program, an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment. An October 21, 2025, University of Washington report documented multiple instances of unauthorized data sharing for tracking individuals and populations. On November 6, 2025, a Washington state judge ruled Flock data is public and subject to disclosure. Costly municipal financial settlements ranging from $50,000 to more than $1 million to individuals falsely arrested or targeted due to ALPR data errors are well documented.

On November 23, 2025, Oregon Senator Wyden requested the FTC investigate Flock’s failure to protect data, exposing Americans’ personal data to theft by hackers, foreign spies, and criminals. Bristolians know firsthand the cost of data hacking and abuse. Recent hacking of Rhode Island’s health exchange compromised the health data and social security numbers of hundreds of thousands of Rhode Islanders. Last year we learned that scammers accessed Bristol’s computers, stealing more than $300,000. Like any other database, Flock is subject to hacking and data breaches. Earlier this month, Flock Safety confirmed a data breach that exposed live police camera feeds to the internet.
Municipal liabilities are heightened by the absence of federal, state, or local regulatory frameworks addressing ALPRs. The RI State Police indicated there is a contract between Flock and the State Police and they are developing an agreement with Bristol addressing the use of ALPRs. However, unlike codified statutes, regulations or town ordinances, any contracts and agreements can be amended at any time.

Liability concerns related to the ALPRs are nonpartisan. Conservative states including Arkansas, Idaho and Montana joined left-leaning states in writing laws addressing personal data collected through ALPRs and other means. Liability concerns contributed to the rejection or cancellation of Flock camera programs in communities across America and in Rhode Island. In the past few months, the Warren town council rejected an identical Flock proposal while Middletown and Portsmouth both delayed Flock approvals. Meanwhile, Barrington and Little Compton are not even part of this proposed Flock rollout out by the State Police.

We oppose Flock camera surveillance in Bristol as an unnecessary invasion of personal privacy. Absent regulatory safeguards to protect the Town of Bristol and every Bristolian from the legal liabilities associated with Flock surveillance, we request that the Bristol town council reject any Flock surveillance proposal when it meets on January 28.

Sharon and Warren Wollschlager
Bristol

.