Flock camera debate comes to Cheshire as privacy concerns mount across Connecticut

CHESHIRE, Conn. (WFSB) - Dozens of residents called on the Cheshire Town Council to remove the town’s 12 Flock Safety license plate cameras at a public meeting Tuesday night.

Debate over the technology continues to spread across Connecticut.

The cameras, which capture the license plate of every vehicle that passes by, were voted in by the town council three years ago.

Police across the state have said the technology helps track stolen cars, locate missing people, and identify vehicles connected to crimes. Last week, the cameras helped police identify a teenager responsible for vandalizing a field at the high school.

How the cameras are used

Cheshire Police Chief Fred Jortner said the cameras have been key in several cases.

“It was a win in short fashion,” Jortner said. “They can be very key at times.”

Town officials and the police department said data collected is only used when needed. Flock says stored data is destroyed after 30 days unless it is part of an active investigation.

Privacy concerns drive opposition

Not everyone in town said they support the program.

Resident Mike Catlin said he wants police to use the cameras to catch criminals but is uncomfortable with the company tracking his movements.

“Big brother watching is a little chilling,” Catlin said.

Data sharing is a central concern for critics. Killingworth and Windsor both installed Flock cameras, raised privacy and data concerns, and are now removing them. Killingworth’s first selectman said Flock would not commit to not selling data to third parties.

A heated meeting in Milford this week also drew residents furious over potential data sharing. Similar requests were raised in Middletown.

State Rep. Liz Linehan said she received a number of complaints about the cameras, though she noted some concerns stemmed from confusion between Flock cameras and speed cameras.

“My goal is not to eliminate the tool that protects victims, finds missing people, and solves serious crimes, nor is it to dismiss people who fear that powerful technology can and is being abused,” Linehan said.

One unidentified Cheshire resident said the decision should have gone to a public vote.

“This is not right. This is being shoved down our throats and I feel this should definitely be put to a vote,” the resident said. “Just like you had the pool put to a vote, this should have been put to a vote.”

Calls for balance and next steps

Some residents said they see merit on both sides. Judy Switalski said balance is needed.

“I think you have to find a balance between the two,” Switalski said. “I don’t want to feel like I’m being stalked. No one does.”

Shawn LeFrancois said she supports the cameras, particularly for child safety cases.

“Especially for children, for kidnapping, if they know what car the child is in, it’s excellent,” LeFrancois said.

Jortner said there may be a middle ground.

“There’s a space where we could get privacy concerns addressed but still offer this technology for victims of crimes,” Jortner said.

The council chair said the cameras were not up for a vote at Tuesday’s meeting but said the council would be open to a public forum involving the police department. Around 50 towns and cities in Connecticut currently use Flock cameras.