|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
NEW BEDFORD — The City Council unanimously passed four motions regarding Flock, one of which asks the mayor and Police Department to physically remove or cover all 20 license-plate-reading cameras during the department’s suspension of the program amid its ongoing audit.
That motion will be sent to Mayor Jon Mitchell’s office, while the other three motions will go to subcommittee in two weeks for further discussion and votes. There, councilors may invite city officials, including the police chief, to answer their questions about Flock and allegations of misuse by city officers.
The votes came five days late, after the council president suspended a meeting, citing a “lack of decorum” by members of the public. Before Tuesday’s meeting, some protesters organized a “Lack of Decorum Forum” in front of the City Hall steps. A table carried zines and guides, including information on automated license plate readers.
Last week, some attendees shouted and booed from the chamber’s second level as a city councilor shared his more amenable views of the technology.
That councilor, Brian Gomes, saw his motion pass on Tuesday. It calls for the public safety committee to meet with Police Chief Jason Thody and representatives from the mayor’s office and Flock Safety “for the purpose of enhancing policies and procedures and strengthening community trust around the use of these cameras.”
Gomes said on Tuesday night that he agreed with the suspension, but doesn’t want to “throw the tools away” that can help the community if proper guardrails are in place. He also acknowledged the dozens of people in the chambers who oppose Flock, but said there are also residents who support the system.
At the outset of Tuesday’s meeting, Council President Ryan Pereira warned attendees that if they spoke without permission after a warning, and did not leave after being asked, that they would be removed by police officers.
Attendees heeded Pereira’s warning, communicating their opposition with handmade signs and thumbs (which were turned down). One sign asked Mitchell to end the Flock contract.
Mitchell did not provide comment ahead of Tuesday’s meeting on the controversy surrounding Flock, including allegations of misuse by a city police detective Emily Pacheco, first reported by The Light.
The city’s public information officer Jonathan Darling in a statement said NBPD is evaluating “potential regulations” on the city’s use of Flock that will “be informed by the views expressed in the recent public discussions concerning Flock cameras.”
Several city councilors on Tuesday called for the permanent removal of the Flock cameras.
“Flock must come down right now,” said Councilor James Roy, adding that the body needs to go beyond automated license plate readers and regulate all forms of surveillance in New Bedford.
“This shit gotta come down immediately,” said Councilor Derek Baptiste.
Baptiste referenced Pacheco, though not by name. She is under investigation by internal affairs for allegedly using Flock to track her ex-girlfriend, The Light reported on Aug. 11. She testified in court Aug. 13 that she had run her ex-girlfriend’s plate for a “drug investigation” involving another subject that was driving her ex’s car.
“This young lady got caught using the Flock camera because she had a 209 [restraining order] on her,” said Baptiste. “How many people are using Flock cameras for that same reason without a 209 that we didn’t know about for the last two years that was snuck right under our noses?”
“We need to have a very serious discussion on whether or not Flock belongs in this community, and the answer is a resounding, in my opinion, no,” said Councilor Ian Abreu. “We have two choices when we get to the committee: establish strong privacy and constitutional protections with our legal counsel, or if we cannot guarantee those protections, seriously consider taking them down.”
Before last week’s meeting, Councilor Leo Choquette had put forth a motion to immediately stop the use of Flock cameras pending review, though it is moot at this time, as the Police Department suspended the system earlier this month. He amended the motion, directly asking Mitchell and Thody to “take down or physically obstruct or cover” the cameras.
Councilors expressed skepticism and concern as to whether the cameras are actually shut off. The body voted unanimously to send Choquette’s motion to the mayor.
Deputy Chief Derek Belong told The Light before the meeting that Thody had communicated to him that Flock turned off the cameras. Thody stood outside the council chambers for the duration of the meeting, listening to the councilors’ concerns, but left just before it ended.
Flock has not responded to inquiries from The Light about the cameras’ status in New Bedford.
Councilors Shane Burgo, Abreu and Joe Lopes put forth two successful motions. One requests that the public safety committee meet with NBPD, city attorneys and the city’s IT department to review Flock and other surveillance technology deployed by the city (as well as the policies governing their use). The city also uses ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection system. Though the city let the ShotSpotter contract expire June 30, The Light reported last week that the system is still active and alerting police, while the city is in new talks with the system’s owner.
The three councilors’ other motion will go to the ordinance committee to discuss whether “the appropriate policy outcome” is the “abolition” of Flock cameras and “other similarly invasive surveillance technologies within the City of New Bedford,” or establishing privacy and transparency standards for license-plate readers. Thody has said the department has opened investigations into an undisclosed number of officers. A timeline Thody shared suggests the department first knew of Pacheco’s alleged misuse as of July 31, the day it began an audit of the system.
Burgo, chair of the ordinance committee, said it is scheduled to meet next on Sept. 8. Gomes, chair of the public safety committee, scheduled its next meeting for Sept. 9.
Burgo said if the council passes an ordinance, such as one prohibiting or restricting the use of Flock, and the mayor vetoes it, then it would likely take until November for the council to override a veto.
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
Flock automated license plate readers are only one of the networked tools that can be purchased by local governments. I believe that the proposed ordinance should include not only ALPRs, but also all other automated surveillance equipment and software. We want to safeguard our constitutional rights now AND in the future. Our legal and technical staff and City Council need to be involved in the selection and regulation of these tools. We thank our City Council for taking these important first steps to protect our rights.
If your kid goes missing, you would absolutely want the Flock system. Everything is a dual edged sword. With the lack of mental institutions, the mentally ill that are running rampant in the city do need watching. It’s the consequence of living in a society. The alternative is to live in the wilderness.
We’ve had society for thousands of years without AI-supported mass surveillance. The cameras don’t stop crime and the mentally ill don’t need to be watched.
How about all elected Government officials get Drug tested just like all City employees are required to!
Marie is 100% correct, with crime so rampant in this city, a senior, a veteran, or a child gets killed by a drive by bullet or random act of violence, these cameras would be of great help in tracking down these criminals. Cross your fingers and pray that it’s not one of your family members. The far left councilors and the handful of lunatics that are holding signs are lost and do not care about the safety of this city.
Excuse me, it’s not the far left. The right are the ones that allow guns and weapons on the streets.
It’s too bad you protesters think more of our rights more than our safety !
I’am willing to bet many of you have cameras on your own house’s
The City of New Bedford is in trouble, the City Councilors need to do a better job. Why bother with all the speeches if these items were just going to be sent to committee?
Time to stop the nonsense the only way to truly gauge and get the opinion of city residents on how the city handles the use of cameras or other forms of surveillance is to hold individual ward meetings or have a special election and put it on a city wide ballot for residents to cast their vote.
New Bedford needs new leadership in City Hall.
To : Brian Gomes ,Chief Thody and Mayor Mitchell
“stick to your guns ” don’t let these crazy protesters sway you !!!
Face the fact : cameras are here to stay . suck it up buttercup
Suck it up buttercup? More like “please tread on me.” I bet you would have been Tory in 1776 too. “The stamp act is good, actually”
The saying is buckle up buttercup it’s going to be a bumpy ride!
100% Supporting Law Enforcement Officers across our country and we should provide them with every tool they need to stop crime. Sure privacy needs to be addressed but to lose an important tool that could help solve a murder, a rape, or an assault (drive by or stabbing) is totally crazy. The City Council is weak and needs to be completely overhauled.
This automated, networked technology may be used to help solve crimes, but it has also been used to harm innocent people.
In a family where there has been physical or sexual abuse, and where a spouse and children have fled and sought shelter in a safe house, the abuser has been able to track them by using this technology at the police station where he worked. There are other examples of motorists who have been falsely identified and arrested.
We need policies, regulations, laws, city ordinances, etc. to prevent this from happening, and this is what our City Council is trying to do. In the meantime, I agree with our councilors that the cameras should come down .
Our officials need to investigate the Flock security failures which have been identified, and the weaknesses in the Flock contract language that gives more control of the information to the vendor than it does to our city, the buyer.
We should thank our councilors and city executive officials and support them in this effort. We want to have law and order in our city, but we do not want innocent people harmed in that process.
Yes, there have been a few arrested and then released who where innocent and there have been many arrested who where guilty and found quicker using this technology. How many innocent people would they have harmed. This is new technology and obviously needs some regulations to insure it is used correctly.
An automobile number plate on a public street is fair game and doesn’t have that level of protection. Tighten the rules on this important law enforcement tool but do not ban it for the good of innocent citizens.
We see all the long winded conspiracy mumbo jumbo posts about Flock Cameras, but city residents consistently wake up to headlines that include shootings, stabbings, domestics, and hit and runs all over this city (east, west, north, and south). The majority of the City Council continue to fail New Bedford, jumping on the bandwagon and representing a few instead of taking the time to hear from the majority city residents, gather all the facts, and than make their decisions. While it’s clear that residents are concerned about privacy, they are also sick of the day to day violence that takes place, and taking an important tool away from law enforcement is outrageous. On so many issues (Crime, Budget, & Leadership) this city is a mess and needs major change.
Time for smart solutions and maintaining public safety. The city should keep the flock cameras in critical areas. A special group of vetted officers should be selected to manage these cameras and handle this information. Narrowing it down to a small group of vetted officers should limit failures and these officers and information could be reviewed on a weekly basis by setting up an independent board of city leaders. Again it’s time for smart solutions and maintaining public safety.
Reasons why we should care:
US government ramps up mass surveillance with help of AI tech, data brokers – and your apps and devices
https://theconversation.com/us-government-ramps-up-mass-surveillance-with-help-of-ai-tech-data-brokers-and-your-apps-and-devices-277440
Feds Under Fire for Mass Surveillance of Americans, Lacking Oversight
https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/federal-data-surveillance-loophole/
DHS-built surveillance apparatus to surge in year ahead, documents show
The agency is expanding detection and tracking technology projects while simultaneously loosening the reins on oversight.
https://fedscoop.com/dhs-surveillance-technology-ai-funding-document-spyware/
Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but it might just be the time to put some faith in our new police chief and give him a chance to do what he was hired to do, lead our city’s law enforcement agency. Supporting the BLUE 100%.
You can want your constitutional rights protected and also want to support your police department The two are not mutually exclusive. Communities need to adopt local ordinances that do both. Legal and tech experts and local elected officials all need to participate in the acquisition and local regulation of all automated, networked technology.
The negativity in this city is a problem, I agree with a previous post, the new police chief does deserve a chance to do his job, and demonstrate how he will handle this situation.