
Watertown’s contract with the Flock Safety company for eight license plate reading cameras was signed in September, but City officials are working on changing the section covering when data will be shared with other law enforcement. Meanwhile, a neighboring community terminated its contract with Flock, and another is determining its own policy for using the cameras.
At Tuesday’s City Council meeting City Manager George Proakis provided a further update about the Flock cameras. During the previous Council meeting, on Nov. 25, he said that the data from the cameras, which take photos of plates but do not have a live feed, will be used only as part of an ongoing investigation. Watertown Police will have to link the request to a documented case, and the use will be audited monthly.
He added that “The Watertown Police Department will not share any images or access with any federal agencies or any departments outside of Massachusetts.” It will share information with other municipalities in Massachusetts but they will have to submit a formal request connected with a legitimate criminal investigation.
The ACLU of Massachusetts contacted the City expressing concerns on how the data would be used. Proakis said Tuesday that he has started a conversation with the ACLU attorney who reached out to the City.
“This is an ongoing email conversation. They’ve responded to giving me some advice, both upon how our internal policy should work, as well as a particular concern related to the contract itself, and we’re moving forward on positive steps to try to do something that that that works within those recommendations,” Proakis said. “Ultimately, I see these discussions as being very beneficial. And helping our team accurately share information about the program and protect privacy as well. And as they progress, I can share more information about that.”
While the cameras have not been installed, Proakis said he signed a contract with Flock in September. He added that some have concerns about a section of the contract. Section 5.3 says, in part, “Flock could disclose data with law enforcement or government agencies if they have, quote, a good faith belief it will aid in addressing security, privacy, fraud or other things,” Proakis said.
He also reached out to Flock to discuss the contract language.
“They provided an explanation to me for why they put that particular language in the contract that way, in regards to, essentially, immediate emergency events. But realistically, I think that both sides realize that, as worded, that contract language is complicated and far from ideal,” Proakis said. “So we’ve requested language essentially limiting and tightening the circumstances, to essentially the types of judicial warrants that would necessitate release of data from a court, rather than circumstances that are as open as a language in 5.3.”
The City’s staff is creating a policy document for the Watertown Police Department, which Proakis said he expects to be complete “in coming weeks, before the system goes up.”
City Council President Mark Sideris requested that the Council receive the policy before it is approved so that it can be referred to a City Council subcommittee “for a very public discussion,” he said.
“I would appreciate if that would be done as soon as possible,” Sideris said.
Proakis said he also plans to discuss the Flock camera system, along with Police Department personnel, during one of the WPD’s Tuesday Night Talks. He said the meeting will take place in January at Hosmer Elementary School.
Flock in Other Communities
Watertown’s discussions about using the Flock Safety system comes at a time when a neighboring community is taking its system off line, and another is drafting its own ordinance for use of the cameras.
Cambridge voted to install the cameras in February but then voted on Oct. 20 to halt use of all Flock cameras until the company addressed fears about data access and enforcement risks, according to a report by Cambridge Day.
On Dec. 1, the City of Cambridge announced it is terminating its contract with Flock.
The City of Cambridge announcement said, in part: “… concerns about Flock were substantiated when they notified the City that two cameras were installed by their technicians in late November — without the City’s awareness — following an outstanding work order that should have been canceled when the City originally deactivated the cameras and account. Due to this material breach of our trust and the agreement, the City is terminating its contract with Flock Safety. The two cameras have also been removed.”
Meanwhile, officials in Waltham are drafting an ordinance for use of the 16 Flock cameras purchased for use by the Waltham Police Department.
According to a story by the Waltham Times, a Waltham City Councilor asked Waltham’s Law Department to include the following pieces in the ordnance: that city departments must get approval from the City Council to use any new surveillance technology, that city departments must publish guidelines on use of and access to information they obtain from the technology, that departments must publish annual reports on any surveillance technology usage, and that the city ban the use of facial recognition tools for surveillance.
The City of Waltham has installed 15 cameras, including one at the intersection of Main and Warren streets, near the Watertown line (near the Shell gas station by the Gore Estate), according to a Nov. 6 story published by the Waltham Times.
I find it absolutely shocking that the town manager can unilaterally decide to install surveillance devices across town — and that’s what they are — with no input from citizens or the elected Town Council. I’m glad the council president “requested” to see the agreement. I would have “demanded” it if I were him. Actually, I’d schedule a vote on whether to accept it after holding a public hearing to see what voters think about it.
I agree with you 100%. A decision of this magnitude should be subject to a referendum, and not be sprung on the populace just because the police asked for it and the the town manager thinks it’s cool. While I generally support the efforts of the WPD, their FAQ on the matter is rife with statements that have been found to be untrue, and that gives me a queasy feeling all around.
Greetings,
In my opinion: the Flock Safety camera initiative must be properly vetted, with full transparency, by the City Council. The issue at hand may be more complicated, than initially envisioned by the powers that be.
FYI – FOR YOUR REVIEW
NewsPress Releases
November 03, 2025
“Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore. and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., today called for a federal investigation into surveillance technology company Flock Safety, for failing to implement cybersecurity protections and needlessly exposing Americans’ personal data to theft by hackers, foreign spies, and criminals.”
Wyden, Krishnamoorthi Urge FTC to Investigate Surveillance Tech Company on Negligently Handling Americans’ Personal Data | U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon https://share.google/h22SRDdgrESxSuvfj
Best,
Angie
Angeline Maria B. Kounelis
Retired District A, East End, City Councilor
Take The Initiative To Make A Difference
Participate In The Process
Can the town council please do a better job of holding George Proakis accountable for some of these terrible decisions and to just start telling him no. Recently, it seems he is just replicating some of the trash policies from Sommerville to Watertown. I don’t want all of this time wasted on “commissions” and “fact finding” when the proposal is just awful.
Who was asking to get these camera’s installed in the first place? Watertown PD ? Transportation Department ? I have yet to hear from an actual resident that these are a good idea.
The cameras were requested by the Watertown Police Department.
Then shame on the WPD for requesting hardware/services from a complete trash vendor like Flock. There are numerous research papers and tutorials on how these cameras can be exploited and abused (there are 43 official security vulnerability/issues, here is a video on 6 of them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY )
This entire process needs to come to a stop immediately, there is absolutely no reason to use tax dollars to purchase these and place them around town.
I completely agree, Eric. I am embarrassed at WPD’s naivety and bullish attitude surrounding this Flock fiasco, but sadly not surprised.
This is a terrible idea for Watertown. Why do we need big brother watching us? I like how the ACLU is stepping in and at least asking that there is accountability and protections but I feel they are doing it more so for ICE detainees than for actual Mass. citizens.
I will be at the January meeting as a hard no. There are so many cities from Chicago to Oklahoman ones removing these cameras for various reasons; erroneous data, unsecure data, court challenges that make the data more available, and rights violations (I can’t see how this doesn’t violate the 4th, maybe even the 1st). In general, I find this creepy, whether it is face recognition, drones or the nosy neighbor. Let’s follow Cambridge’s lead and not Waltham, and back out of this now. Better yet, let’s not even start it – very bad idea!
Why is such surveillance being prioritized over core public safety mission like traffic enforcement? It can be worth your life to cross the street in the East End and there is little discernible effort to mitigate the danger. Let’s keep our residents safe before investing in technology that is controversial.
I agree that we should NOT install Flock cameras in our city. I don’t care if the police department has requested them. Frankly, after what we’ve seen nationally from “law enforcement,” I don’t trust that this capability will be used in a way that aligns with everyone’s constitutional rights. Even if they don’t abuse this capability this year, the incentive to abuse it eventually will be irresistible.
Also, I agree with Joe — why aren’t the police enforcing traffic laws first? It’s like the wild west on our streets. I personally have encountered many near accidents from unsafe drivers on our city streets, including one yesterday!