404 Media has obtained a coaching guide that Flock surveillance gives to police about “how to speak to city councils about public safety technology.” The handbook highlights how Flock and police team up to convince cities to buy and keep its automated license plate reader technology, even when there is widespread public opposition to it, and encourages police to “own the narrative before someone else does” by championing the technology before citizens can oppose it during public comment periods.

The PDF guide notes that the general public and cities now “increasingly expect transparency, oversight, and accountability alongside public safety outcomes,” and tells police to not argue with people who believe that Flock’s license plate readers are “mass surveillance.”

“One of the most common questions agencies hear today is whether license plate recognition (LPR) technology constitutes mass surveillance. Many leaders instinctively respond by attempting to refute the claim. Flock's Jamie Hudson recommends a different approach,” the guide reads.

“Don’t avoid the concept of mass surveillance because you’re not going to convince opponents that it’s not,” the company recommends. Flock tells law enforcement agencies they need to try to convince city council and city managers that the technology is worthwhile before meetings with the public occur; that they need to have a “carefully scripted presentation” ready to go; and that police need to say they want Flock because they want to keep the community safe: “You care about your community. That’s why you’re bringing this in.” 

Flock began offering this guide as part of a broader attempt to coach police on how to push back against criticism of its policies and security practices, many of which 404 Media has investigated and shed light on. These include the fact that Flock data was regularly making its way to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), often in violation of sanctuary city and state laws; that Flock was used to search 83,000 cameras nationwide for a woman who had an abortion in Texas; and that Flock has been used by police to stalk people and surveil protesters. These investigations and broader concern over the surveillance state have led many cities to hold city council meetings to reconsider their Flock contracts, and this Flock-produced guide is an attempt to help police shape the narrative in a way that will either convince cities to buy Flock or to keep their contracts. 

The guide is associated with a Flock webinar for police called “How to Speak to City Councils: Meeting the Moment with Confidence,” which included modules on “how to address misinformation with clarity.” After public opposition late last year, the company began to offer Q&A sessions with its CEO, Garrett Langley, for city council members, police, and mayors to address what Flock described as an “era of unprecedented misinformation.” 

“The recent headlines about our company are largely a result of this environment,” the company told cities. 

“Opponents have a very carefully scripted narrative. They come prepared. You should also have a carefully scripted presentation that addresses those concerns ahead of time,” the guide says. “The agencies that navigate these conversations successfully rarely wait until a council meeting to educate stakeholders. They brief city managers early. They meet with council members before votes occur. They share policies proactively and answer questions before public comment periods become the first introduction to the program.” 

The guide also tells police that they can convince city councils that Flock is worth the monetary cost by conveniently not focusing on how much the cameras cost, but by “reframing the financial discussion itself” to focus on “the cost of unresolved crime.” Flock also writes that much of the opposition to its technology is happening because people “do not understand how it works or how it is governed.” This idea is one that has been regularly repeated by Langley over the last several months. 

Surveillance companies regularly try to get police to act as quasi salespeople and spokespeople for their companies, pitting a private company and taxpayer-funded law enforcement on one side and citizens on the other. “For years, surveillance vendors like Flock Safety have shaped policy debates cities are supposed to run independently — staging council ‘prep calls’ and exploiting a basic asymmetry: the vendor controls the facts, and city staff are rarely positioned to challenge them,” Sarah T. Hamid, director of strategic campaigns at the Electronic Frontier Foundation told 404 Media after reviewing the guide. “The financial interest is obvious. Flock isn’t just selling surveillance, it’s scripting the public case for buying it. Because Flock treats public trust as a messaging problem rather than a governance outcome, that script keeps officials focused on ‘accountability’ in the abstract instead of the concrete harms and documented abuses its network has already enabled.”

404 Media has watched numerous city council meetings around the country where police talk about how Flock is a critical law enforcement system for them; in many cases, a police chief will speak about Flock and then introduce a Flock employee to give a presentation about the surveillance system. On Monday, 404 Media published an interview with a former Flock government affairs manager who regularly pitched the technology to cities at public meetings. An activist who has been pushing back against Flock in their community and who shared the guide document with 404 Media said that they have regularly seen the strategies suggested by Flock deployed in city council meetings they have attended and watched. 404 Media agreed to keep the activist anonymous to protect them from retaliation.

“I think this document shows a coordinated effort from Flock Safety to compel law enforcement agencies to convince our elected leaders to represent their interests as a company rather than the interests of concerned citizens,” they said. “I have watched many meetings locally in my city and my state and across the country, and you can see the techniques used in this ebook in the presentations given by law enforcement. Pivoting conversations away from concerns about mass surveillance and directing them towards procedure and governance is a vehicle that's used to downplay the concerns of privacy-minded citizens. We have every right to expect our elected leaders to listen to us, and it's very common to see city councils vote with a supermajority in favor of approving Flock contracts despite standing-room only attendance at city council meetings with little to no public support for this product.”

The guide specifically highlights several supposed success stories in which communities had very real concerns about Flock but ultimately decided not to get rid of the technology. For example, it highlights how Flock was able to get a vote in favor of its technology in Oakland, California, despite it being “one of the most scrutinized public safety technology debates in the state,” with “more than 140 public comments” and opposition from the city’s Privacy Advisory Commission: “The conversation shifted when officials stopped asking the public to trust the technology and started showing how the technology could be audited, reviewed, and held accountable.” 

It also tells the story of Richmond, California, which allowed its Flock contract to temporarily lapse after the city’s cameras were included in the company’s national lookup tool. City officials there worried that their cameras’ data would be accessed by ICE, in violation of California and local law. “After concerns emerged around data sharing and sanctuary city policies, the city's program was paused and subjected to intense public scrutiny,” the Flock guide says. “Rather than relying on generalized claims about effectiveness, department leadership presented two and a half years of local results, including 274 arrests and 259 vehicle recoveries connected to the program. The council ultimately voted 4-3 to reinstate the system.”

Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

On July 20, Jacob Petrosky stood in front of the Casa Grande, Arizona City Council during a public comment session and made an announcement.

“I've spent the last several months talking to people all over Casa Grande, and one thing keeps coming up: Safety. So, today I'm excited to announce a new company called Shepherd Safety,” he said. “Our mission is simple. Keep government officials and their families safe.” It would be no different than how the city monitors its citizens using Flock cameras, he said; he planned to launch satellites that would use AI to monitor “where government officials go, where they stop, who they meet with, and when they return home.” 

He said he’d already started compiling profiles on their vehicles, spouses vehicles, children's vehicles, and planned to combine that data with Bluetooth signals, advertising IDs, and commercial data sources, “so our authorized users can replay the movements of every government official and their immediate family,” he said. Local businesses would be invited to join the network, to “protect” officials while they shop, eat at restaurants, and move around the city. 

After laying out his plan and its benefits for the government officials before him, Petrosky revealed that it was all satire. “I would never do this to you,” he said to the council members. “Could I? Probably. But I wouldn't because it's wrong. Just like what you guys are doing to us is wrong.” 

Petrosky told me he never expected or intended to be the face of opposition to Flock cameras in his small town. And the clip, which has since gone viral on social media, only shows one angle of one moment that’s part of a much longer fight.  

Casa Grande City Council unanimously approved a 10 year, $10 million contract with Flock last year, and since then, Petrosky has spoken against the partnership several times at city council meetings. “You know, I'm actually a little bit embarrassed by the video. I did not feel good about it,” he told me. “The looks... You don't get to see the looks on [council members’] faces. They didn't understand it was satire in the beginning until the end, and the looks on their faces were like, we hate you and we're gonna get you. They were not happy, they were very upset.”  

What Happened When Flock Came to My Town

My small town in South Carolina will soon have more Flock cameras than police officers.

Casa Grande City Council members did not immediately respond to 404 Media’s request for comment.

Petrosky said he’s not trying to be “a troll,” but after asking the council to consider the invasion of privacy they were inflicting on constituents, including asking them to consider putting Flock data behind a warrant, his patience was wearing thin. “So it didn't feel great, but I wanted it to sink in,” he said. “I'm not looking to go viral. I don't want to be an online personality, but what I really just want is maybe just a little bit of privacy.” 

Petrosky said he first noticed Flock cameras going up in Casa Grande last year. It wasn’t until then that he started getting civically involved. “I registered to vote this year. I'm very transparent about that. I could care less about city council or politics or any of that. I'm very much a nerd,” he said. “They did this deal last year, and then all of a sudden, like 200 cameras appeared in our city, pretty much almost overnight. It was really crazy. In fact, they deployed them so quickly that it freaked me out.” He realized that he couldn’t enter or leave his neighborhood on a paved road without being tracked on a Flock camera. 

Petrosky launched a website, DeFlockCG, along with a petition that asks Casa Grande residents to voice specific demands, from limited third-party access to camera data and repercussions for abuse of the system, to removal of Flock from the city altogether. Almost 900 people have signed the petition so far.

Local news outlet Pinal Central reported earlier this month that a public records request revealed that the city has installed about 140 of the planned 200 cameras as of late June, with half being license plate reader cameras while the other half are pan-tilt-zoom cameras. 

The city’s website about its Safe Cities Initiative says that in addition to assisting in solving crimes and increasing transparency for the public, the initiative and cameras are intended to “prevent crime before it occurs.” The website only mentions Flock in reference to using the Flock OS system to connect cameras and technologies, but links to a “transparency portal” and how to register privately-owned cameras into the network go directly to Flock’s own web pages. On Flock’s website highlighting the Casa Grande partnership, the company quotes Casa Grande Police Chief Mark McCrory: "In the past, investigators relied on slow, manual efforts to gather video evidence. Now, with registered cameras securely integrated into our Real Time Information Center, we can access vital footage faster—turning information into actionable intelligence when it matters most."

Flock ‘Objects to Our Removing Their Equipment’: Emails Reveal Why a Town Put Bags Over Its Flock Cameras

“For the time being, if you or someone on your crew has availability to secure black plastic bags (or something else) over the cameras, that would be great.”

In May, Casa Grande City Council voted unanimously to give police access to elementary school cameras through the Flock partnership. 

Last week, a 404 Media investigation revealed that police departments around the country have used Flock cameras at least hundreds of times to search for specific people with specific characteristics, like “heavy-set male with a black and white hat” or “person on skateboard,” and these searches sometimes reference people’s race or signs of their political affiliation.

Several cities and small communities around the country have canceled their contracts with Flock, citing privacy concerns and the potential for abuse. Petrosky said he primarily wants the city to require a warrant for accessing the data collected by cameras. 

Petrosky knows his “announcement” at the council meeting was absurd, but the absurdity was the point. “It's incredibly stupid, and then it's also just incredibly inappropriate. The thought of tracking and associating them with their children and their spouses and all of it,” he said. He would prefer to keep to himself, and doesn’t relish these moments in front of the council, the entire town, the police department, and now, the whole internet. “Never in my wildest imagination would I ever be in a position like this. I don't want to be famous. I just want this to go away. I want these things to at least just be put behind a warrant.”

The Wikimedia Foundation waited until the days following its largest worldwide conference to issue a statement saying it would not voluntarily recognize a union of its workers.

Last week, Wiki Workers United, which is organized through the Communication Workers Union and represents U.S. workers at the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, requested voluntary recognition of their union. Wiki Workers United said that it had secured a “supermajority of union-eligible workers who have signed union authorization cards.” A group of more than 1,100 Wikipedia editors have also signed a letter of support for the union.

On Monday, just days after the massive Wikimania Conference concluded in Paris, the Wikimedia Foundation announced it would not voluntarily recognize the union and said the union would have to conduct a vote as overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.

“The Foundation’s responsibility is to ensure that they can make their own choice freely,” the foundation wrote in the statement. “So that every eligible employee has an equal voice, we believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward.”

“We have heard a range of views from staff, including concerns from those who have felt pressured to support union efforts and those who are confused by the unionization process,” the foundation added in a frequently asked questions section. “We have also seen a misunderstanding around what the union can do for global staff and Wikimedia movement communities.”

The Wikimedia Foundation’s statement and its frequently asked questions section is full of very carefully-worded language that is common among companies and organizations that have fought against unionization. For example, the FAQ includes a long section about the benefits that Wikimedia Foundation already offers its staff, and the statement suggests that there is a “wide range of views on unionization” among employees. 

Wikipedians immediately took issue with the timing of the statement and the language of it. On a talk page discussing the statement, the Wikimedia Foundation is getting hammered for the timing of the statement and the statement itself.

“What a shameful decision to tie the process to the willingness of Trump-controlled NLRB. Everyone involved in denying the voluntary recognition should resign in disgrace or be driven out,” one editor wrote. 

“The fact that this response came exactly 1 day after Wikimania shows that you are afraid of being confronted,” another wrote. 

“This is an extremely disappointing statement. It says that ‘Foundation leadership respects the right of staff to unionize, if they choose to do so. That decision rests with them.’ But that decision has been made - by a supermajority of US-based staff. The only thing standing between the US WWU and recognition is WMF executive leadership, who could recognize the union today if they cared to,” a third wrote. 

“As a U.S. trained labor lawyer and past organizer with WWU, this statement, alongside the WMF’s public facing community post reek of union-busting disinformation. What’s critical for the community to know is that a supermajority of the workers already did vote by signing a card. This ‘extra step’ is just a delay tactic that employers are advised to do when they don’t want a union,” a fourth wrote. “These WMF workers have already been extremely brave by expressly affirming their commitment to a union. Years of efforts to get this accomplished. This is not some rash decision by them. Moreover, the community supports their union too! It literally makes no sense as to why WMF thought this was the right decision here in this critical moment.”

At Wikimania in Paris, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Chief Executive Officer Bernadette Meehan was asked about voluntarily recognizing the union. Meehan said “our focus is on executing and helping the core organizing team execute a great event. We will respond to that particular request when we have a chance to review it.”

“We are supportive and we support employees’ right to unionize. The context is complicated because we operate in multiple different places,” she added. “We respect the right if it is the majority will of eligible staffers to unionize.” 

 The Wikimedia Foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

America's garbage trucks can do more than just collect trash, reports Newsweek. They may also help identify code violations using AI. Officials in Cape Coral, Florida, recently considered equipping sanitation trucks with AI-powered cameras that would photograph properties as crews complete their normal collection routes. The system would have been designed to identify potential issues such as overgrown lawns, peeling paint, and illegal dumping, and to flag violations so the city staff can review them later before taking enforcement action... However, in a statement on July 13, Cape Coral officials said it would not be moving forward with the camera technology, citing cost issues and insufficient benefits. "Claims suggesting that this technology would automatically identify, cite or fine residents are inaccurate," the statement also noted... Cape Coral officials say that a camera system in the future would assist — not replace — human code enforcement officers, and employees will review any AI-generated alerts before violations are issued. "Even if such a system were to be considered in the future, any potential code violations would require review and verification by a Code Compliance Officer before any enforcement action could be taken," the organization wrote. But Cape Coral, Florida "is not the first city to explore the technology," the article notes. AI imaging systems developed by City Detect have already been deployed in several municipalities. According to the company's published case studies, Stockton, California, used the platform to analyze nearly 40,000 parcels, capturing almost 200,000 images while identifying thousands of potential code issues. Cathedral City, California, has also used the technology to assist code enforcement, while Dallas approved funding for a similar program pending final implementation. Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Last month, “Weird Al” Yankovic made headlines for turning down a “nice pile of money” to star in an AI commercial. It was a delightfully principled stand from the man behind parody songs like “Eat It” and “Fat.” But it wasn’t an especially rare one, as Yankovic now says that he passed on performing at last year’s Riyadh Comedy Festival, which saw comics like Dave Chappelle and Bill Burr catch a good deal of heat while they defended their decision as normal and what anyone would have done, which we suppose does make Yankovic’s decision the weird one in this paradigm. Says Yankovic, “I wish people would offer me things that I didn’t feel bad about accepting.”