Public Safety Committee Raises Privacy Concerns Over Police Use of Flock Cameras

Pasadena’s Public Safety Committee raised concerns Wednesday about privacy, data sharing and potential misuse by outside agencies as it reviewed the Pasadena Police Department’s use of automated license plate reader cameras, known as Flock.

While acknowledging the system’s value in solving crimes, committee members expressed concerns on the broader implications of the technology beyond its crime-fighting benefits, particularly the creation of a searchable database of vehicle movements, the potential for misuse by outside agencies, and limits on the City’s ability to control how shared data might be accessed or repurposed.

Officials also questioned whether safeguards — including data retention limits, audit systems and sharing restrictions — are sufficient to prevent indirect access by federal authorities or ensure the system is applied equitably across neighborhoods.

“I think it’s an important distinction that it’s collecting information and then building a database that can be accessed after the fact,” said Vice Mayor Jess Rivas.

Rivas repeatedly questioned whether Pasadena can fully guard against misuse of its data, particularly by other law enforcement agencies or the federal government.

“If everyone’s a good actor and following the law, this works great,” he said. “But I, for one, don’t trust the federal administration right now.”

Rivas also raised concerns about indirect access, suggesting a scenario in which another agency could share Pasadena’s data improperly.

“I guess the situation I’m envisioning is another California agency … physically bring in a federal agent to sit right next to them while they’re running searches,” Rivas said.

Councilmember Justin Jones focused on how the system is deployed and safeguarded, questioning both the placement of cameras and protections against misuse. The majority of the cameras are in District 3 which Jones represents.

“There’s a heavy concentration in District 3, when it could be spread out,” Jones said. “I’m no expert, but it seems like it could be spread out to prevent someone from getting on the 210.”

He also pressed officials on oversight and accountability regarding the tracking of people not suspected of a crime and misuse of data.

A case number must be used to enter the system and police said immigration authorities have not accessed the City’s data.

“Do we have a policy prohibiting the use for tracking individuals not suspected of a crime?” Jones said. “And then are we protecting against … misuse of the data?”

Committee members did not take action on the item. The discussion was cut short when the panel was about to lose a quorum, and officials said the issue will return for further consideration at a future meeting.

Councilmember Steve Madison expressed a more supportive view of the technology but acknowledged privacy concerns.

“I like my privacy as much as everyone,” Madison said. “But when I drive around the city, my license plate is visible.”

Madison framed the system as an extension of what is already observable in public spaces.

“This technology allows technology to tell us if it’s stolen warrants, a missing child, any number of things like that,” he said.