Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Yadi.
Wednesday, March 18, 2026 11:56 AM
Sabha, Tamer; Diaz, Eligio; Gao, Beilei; PublicComment-AutoResponse Public Comment - Pasadena Public Safety Committee Meeting 03/18/26 Public Comment - Pasadena City Public Safety Committee 03-18-2026 Flock ALPR.pdf [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT pori:al.
Hi,
Please find attached my public comment for the March 18, 2026 Pasadena Public Safety Committee Meeting, agenda item 4. Flock ALPR.
Thanks,
Yadi
4. Flock ALPR
Thank you for initiating a discussion about Pasadena's ALPRs. This conversation is long-overdue.
The city needs a more robust and codified system to vet technologies before they are procured - especially surveillance technologies - and those that have the potential to infringe on our privacy, our civil liberties and impact our quality of life.
The City needs to hire privacy staff promptly who can help ensure our rights are protected and guarded, as well as help the city abide by privacy laws and regulations. In addition, the City needs to establish an independent mechanism to help the city evaluate technologies, such as a standing commission. Moreover, audits of ALPR and other technologies should be done by an independent third party for trust. Many other municipalities the size of Pasadena have these structures.
It would be great for structure that allows other commissions with interests in particular technologies to share their recommendations to the relevant committee(s) and full council.
The City should iron out which bodies are responsible for tech, because ALPR has mostly been heard in the Public Safety Committee...except when it was heard in the Finance Committee...even though there's an Ed & Technology Committee. And should also be addressed in the Policy Committee.
It should be noted that the agenda item states this is a discussion about ALPRs, but the presentation is only about Flock ALPR. Pasadena has a variety of ALPR vendors, Flock are fixed cameras and the Vigilant/Motorola ALPR devices are mounted on vehicles. Moreover, an actual audit on ALPR is not presented today, in its place is a marketing presentation from PPD about Flock ALPR. It definitely doesn't look like the other audits done by the City audit department.
On a related note, it is unclear what the purpose of this discussion is, aside from PPD attesting that everything with Flock is on the up and up. Where does this leave the council to engage in meaningful discussion about the use of mass surveillance by the City of Pasadena without meaningful community engagement, consent, guardrails, transparency or accountability...or how this fits within public safety? Because more than ever, privacy is safety.
Yadi
Pasadena Public Safety Committee
March 18, 2026
4. Flock ALPR
Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Karin Olsson
Wednesday, March 18, 2026 4:55 PM
Diaz, Eligio; Gao, Beilei; Sabha, Tamer
Public Comment on Flock ALPR for Tonight's Public Safety Committee Meeting [You don't often get email from
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification
Learn why this is important at
[ ^ ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Hello,
I am a Pasadena resident living at Villa Gardens, and I'm strongly urging you to get the Flock ALPRs out of our city. Flock is an extremely unethical company and is the subject of a class action lawsuit here in California for allegedly violating CA law and the privacy ofCA residents by sharing information with federal law enforcement and out-of-state law enforcement agencies. This is not only illegal, but a gross violation of our privacy. And it didn't only happen on a few occasions, but California residents' data was searched millions of times by out-of-state law enforcement agencies. I hope that Pasadena will join numerous cities such as Cambridge MA, Flagstaff AZ, Mountain View CA, Eugene OR, and Ithaca NY in addressing these privacy concerns by cancelling their contracts with Flock cameras.
Thank you,
Karin LOIsson