Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Daniel Nomura < [email protected] >
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 9:50 AM
Sabha, Tamer
No Flock. No mass surveillance
[ 1 ) 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.
MT Sabha,
Some think that invasions of privacy are justified because they have nothing to hide, but that premise assumes there is, and will always be, an alignment of values. Data storage is cheap and our political system is fickle, it's only a matter of time before your data is in the hands of people you do not trust. Once they are in place, surveillance systems can be used by immigration hardliners and woke politicians alike, easily justified with tough on crime or "stop the spread" vaccine/mask rhetoric.
As consumers we have been passively giving our data to ad companies, which is a privacy nightmare on its own, but now you want to actively create a surveillance state. Advocating for more cameras with facial recognition and location tracking for the government is advocating for a surveillance state, full stop. Good police work is about gaining the trust of the community, not ubiquitous cameras, drones, and helicopters. Big tech's promise to make your job easier only sows more distrust and removes you further from the people.
Let's not forget a third party of unauthorized access to this data. Whether it's nation states, hacker groups, or just a jealous ex who happens to work for Flock, no system is unhackable and inviting malicious actors to have a clear view into our city and our lives is unforgivable. It may not be your intention, but these systems create more avenues for criminals to hurt the people you're supposed to protect.
Everywhere I look, it seems like the world is falling apart, but the beauty of our city and the strength of our community to work together and rebuild after tragedy gives me hope. Do not open the door for dystopia in our city. Get the Flock out of Pasadena. 1 Daniel Nomura
Pasadena, California 91106
2 Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brenna Cancilla < [email protected] >
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:04 AM
Sabha, Tamer
Please Discontinue Flock Use in Pasadena
[ 1 ] 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.
MT Sabha,
Good morning,
I am a Pasadena resident who is completely uncomfortable with the presence of Flock cameras in Pasadena. I urge Pasadena City Council to put safety over surveillance and cut ties with Flock. If South Pasadena can cancel their Flock contract, we can too! Flock ALPR cameras are being used for indiscriminate surveillance, tracking and targeting of countless individuals. While Flock, law enforcement and city government tout the benefits of automated license plate readers for public safety, in reality it endangers everyone - in particular immigrants and their families, people of color, people seeking sensitive healthcare, and the many exercising civil liberties like free speech.
Flock's indiscriminate surveillance is in conflict with constitutional protections and numerous civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation arguing that the technology infringes on Americans' right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Despite repeated attempts from Flock to reform their system, it is apparent ALPR is problematic, insecure and can have devastating consequences for innocent individuals. Academics, researchers and experts overwhelmingly agree that there's a lack of evidence linking flock to crime reduction rates.
There is overwhelming evidence of abuse and misuse of ALPR systems across the country - and Pasadena's ALPR systems are no exception. Pasadena was notified that it was sharing ALPR information across the country, the city lacked ALPR data retention restrictions, and many residents have expressed privacy concerns over the years. Despite this, Pasadena Police says Flock is a "useful tool" - yes, it is useful in diverting resources that would 1 otherwise go towards community oriented public safety solutions that don't infringe on our civil liberties.
Pasadena should join dozens of cities across the country who have ended their contracts with Flock, removed cameras and rejected any ALPR replacements such as Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz, and others.
Pasadena, choose your constituents. Restore trust, restore accountability and uphold our constitutional rights. End all ties with Flock now.
Best,
Brenna Cancilla
Brenna Cancilla
Pasadena, California 91101
2 Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jessica Schultz < [email protected] >
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:45 AM
Pub I icCom ment-Auto Response
End Flock usage in Pasadena
[ 1 ] 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 Doll portal.
M Public Comment,
I urge Pasadena City Council to put safety over surveillance and cut ties with Flock. In light of the current tensions facing our community as well as the concerns over its overreach and unsecured network, it does more harm than good and only makes the the public more uneasy.
Flock ALPR cameras are being used for indiscriminate surveillance, tracking and targeting of countless individuals. While Flock, law enforcement and city government tout the benefits of automated license plate readers for public safety, in reality it endangers everyone - in particular immigrants and their families, people of color, people seeking sensitive healthcare, and the many exercising civil liberties like free speech.
Flock's indiscriminate surveillance is in conflict with constitutional protections and numerous civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation arguing that the technology infringes on Americans' right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Despite repeated attempts from Flock to reform their system, it is apparent ALPR is problematic, insecure and can have devastating consequences for innocent individuals. Academics, researchers and experts overwhelmingly agree that there's a lack of evidence linking flock to crime reduction rates.
There is overwhelming evidence of abuse and misuse of ALPR systems across the country - and Pasadena's ALPR systems are no exception. Pasadena was notified that it was sharing ALPR information across the country, the city lacked ALPR data retention restrictions, and many residents have expressed privacy concerns over the years. Despite this, Pasadena Police says Flock is a "useful tool" - yes, it is useful in diverting resources that would 1 otherwise go towards community oriented public safety solutions that don't infringe on our civil liberties.
Pasadena should join dozens of cities across the country who have ended their contracts with Flock, removed cameras and rejected any ALPR replacements such as South Pasadena, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz, and others.
Pasadena, choose your constituents. Restore trust, restore accountability and uphold our constitutional rights. End all ties with Flock now.
Jessica Schultz
Pasadena, California 91101
2 Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michael Cordoncillo < [email protected] >
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 10:46 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Flock out of Pasadena
[ 1 ] 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.
M Public Comment,
I urge Pasadena City Council to put safety over surveillance and cut ties with Flock.
Flock ALPR cameras are being used for indiscriminate surveillance, tracking and targeting of countless individuals. While Flock, law enforcement and city government tout the benefits of automated license plate readers for public safety, in reality it endangers everyone - in particular immigrants and their families, people of color, people seeking sensitive healthcare, and the many exercising civil liberties like free speech.
Flock's indiscriminate surveillance is in conflict with constitutional protections and numerous civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation arguing that the technology infringes on Americans' right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Despite repeated attempts from Flock to reform their system, it is apparent ALPR is problematic, insecure and can have devastating consequences for innocent individuals. Academics, researchers and experts overwhelmingly agree that there's a lack of evidence linking flock to crime reduction rates.
There is overwhelming evidence of abuse and misuse of ALPR systems across the country - and Pasadena's ALPR systems are no exception. Pasadena was notified that it was sharing ALPR information across the country, the city lacked ALPR data retention restrictions, and many residents have expressed privacy concerns over the years. Despite this, Pasadena Police says Flock is a "useful tool" - yes, it is useful in diverting resources that would otherwise go towards community oriented public safety solutions that don't infringe on our civil liberties.
1 Pasadena should join dozens of cities across the country who have ended their contracts with Flock, removed cameras and rejected any ALPR replacements such as Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz, and others.
Pasadena, choose your constituents. Restore trust, restore accountability and uphold our constitutional rights. End all ties with Flock now.
Michael Cordoncillo
Pasadena, California 91101
2 Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Yo Momma <[email protected]>
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 11 :17 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Flock out of Pasadena
[ 1 ] 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.
M Public Comment,
I urge Pasadena City Council to put safety over surveillance and cut ties with Flock.
Flock ALPR cameras are being used for indiscriminate surveillance, tracking and targeting of countless individuals. While Flock, law enforcement and city government tout the benefits of automated license plate readers for public safety, in reality it endangers everyone - in particular immigrants and their families, people of color, people seeking sensitive healthcare, and the many exercising civil liberties like free speech.
Flock's indiscriminate surveillance is in conflict with constitutional protections and numerous civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation arguing that the technology infringes on Americans' right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Despite repeated attempts from Flock to reform their system, it is apparent ALPR is problematic, insecure and can have devastating consequences for innocent individuals. Academics, researchers and experts overwhelmingly agree that there's a lack of evidence linking flock to crime reduction rates.
There is overwhelming evidence of abuse and misuse of ALPR systems across the country - and Pasadena's ALPR systems are no exception. Pasadena was notified that it was sharing ALPR information across the country, the city lacked ALPR data retention restrictions, and many residents have expressed privacy concerns over the years. Despite this, Pasadena Police says Flock is a "useful tool" - yes, it is useful in diverting resources that would otherwise go towards community oriented public safety solutions that don't infringe on our civil liberties.
1 Pasadena should join dozens of cities across the country who have ended their contracts with Flock, removed cameras and rejected any ALPR replacements such as Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz, and others.
Pasadena, choose your constituents. Restore trust, restore accountability and uphold our constitutional rights. End all ties with Flock now.
Yo Momma
Pasadena, California 91103
2 Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brittany Taylor < [email protected] >
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 11 :20 AM
Sabha, Tamer
Flock out of Pasadena
[ 1 ] 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.
MT Sabha,
I urge Pasadena City Council to put safety over surveillance and cut ties with Flock.
Flock ALPR cameras are being used for indiscriminate surveillance, tracking and targeting of countless individuals. While Flock, law enforcement and city government tout the benefits of automated license plate readers for public safety, in reality it endangers everyone - in particular immigrants and their families, people of color, people seeking sensitive healthcare, and the many exercising civil liberties like free speech.
Flock's indiscriminate surveillance is in conflict with constitutional protections and numerous civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation arguing that the technology infringes on Americans' right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Despite repeated attempts from Flock to reform their system, it is apparent ALPR is problematic, insecure and can have devastating consequences for innocent individuals. Academics, researchers and experts overwhelmingly agree that there's a lack of evidence linking flock to crime reduction rates.
There is overwhelming evidence of abuse and misuse of ALPR systems across the country - and Pasadena's ALPR systems are no exception. Pasadena was notified that it was sharing ALPR information across the country, the city lacked ALPR data retention restrictions, and many residents have expressed privacy concerns over the years. Despite this, Pasadena Police says Flock is a "useful tool" - yes, it is useful in diverting resources that would otherwise go towards community oriented public safety solutions that don't infringe on our civil liberties.
1 Pasadena should join dozens of cities across the country who have ended their contracts with Flock, removed cameras and rejected any ALPR replacements such as Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz, and others.
Pasadena, choose your constituents. Restore trust, restore accountability and uphold our constitutional rights. End all ties with Flock now.
Brittany Taylor
Sierra Madre, California 91024
2 Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary Young < [email protected] >
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 11 :28 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Flock out of Pasadena
[ 1 ] 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.
M Public Comment,
As an SGV resident (I live in Alhambra but am frequently in Pasadena), I urge Pasadena City Council to put safety over surveillance and cut ties with Flock.
Flock ALPR cameras are being used for indiscriminate surveillance, tracking and targeting of countless individuals. While Flock, law enforcement and city government tout the benefits of automated license plate readers for public safety, in reality it endangers everyone - in particular immigrants and their families, people of color, people seeking sensitive healthcare, and the many exercising civil liberties like free speech.
Flock's indiscriminate surveillance is in conflict with constitutional protections and numerous civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation arguing that the technology infringes on Americans' right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Despite repeated attempts from Flock to reform their system, it is apparent ALPR is problematic, insecure and can have devastating consequences for innocent individuals. Academics, researchers and experts overwhelmingly agree that there's a lack of evidence linking flock to crime reduction rates.
There is overwhelming evidence of abuse and misuse of ALPR systems across the country - and Pasadena's ALPR systems are no exception. Pasadena was notified that it was sharing ALPR information across the country, the city lacked ALPR data retention restrictions, and many residents have expressed privacy concerns over the years. Despite this, Pasadena Police says Flock is a "useful tool" - yes, it is useful in diverting resources that would otherwise go towards community oriented public safety solutions that don't infringe on our civil liberties.
1 Pasadena should join dozens of cities across the country who have ended their contracts with Flock, removed cameras and rejected any ALPR replacements such as Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz, and others.
Pasadena, choose your constituents. Restore trust, restore accountability and uphold our constitutional rights. End all ties with Flock now.
Gary Young
Alhambra, California 91801
2 Sabha, Tamer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kathryn Mcchesney < [email protected] >
Wednesday, April 15, 2026 11 :52 AM
Sabha, Tamer
End Pasadena's Use of Flock
[ 1 J 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.
MT Sabha,
At a time when public trust in our institutions is already deteriorating, I'm disappointed that Pasadena City Council and PPD have continued to partner with and utilize Flock. The primary benefits realized, like somewhat increased rates of recovery of stolen vehicles, pale in comparison to the intangible cost of damaging the relationship between PPD and the people of Pasadena.
Surveilling us, monitoring us, as we go about our lives, puts us in an inherently antagonistic relationship with those doing the surveilling. If we need to be surveilled, we must not be trusted - so why should we trust in return? If our right to privacy means so little to the Pasadena City Council and POD, what other rights might be threatened next? And regardless how many safeguards we are told are put in place to protect access to our images and the data of our movements, time and again experience has taught us that any data can be breached, any bad-faith actor can take advantage of the best intentions, flout those safeguards, and access data for their own ends.
I urge Pasadena City Council to not damage the relationship with your constituents further.
Please cut ties with Flock.
Kathryn McChesney
Pasadena, California 91104
1