At a packed meeting on August 15 held at the Barack Obama Library, more than 100 St. Petersburg residents gathered to hear DeFlock St. Pete, a grassroots organization formed to challenge the city’s use of automated license‑plate readers (ALPR). Organizer Zach Schira told the audience that the city’s contract with private company Flock Safety allows cameras to scan every passing vehicle, create a unique identifier for each car, and store that information in a centralized database without a warrant.
Contract details and concerns
In 2024 St. Petersburg approved a roughly $730,000 agreement with Flock Safety for the installation of 50 ALPR cameras. The deal followed a pilot program that began in 2022. Unlike traditional traffic cameras that record only vehicles suspected of criminal activity, the ALPR units capture license‑plate data from any vehicle that passes within their field of view. Police can later search the database during investigations, a capability that supporters say aids law‑enforcement, but critics argue creates a tool for mass surveillance.
Schira emphasized that the issue is not merely the ability to search plates, but the volume of data collected, where it is shared, and the opacity surrounding who can access it. “They are cameras that scan the license plate of every passing car,” he said. “They uniquely ID your car and that data all feeds into a centralized database that tracks people without the requirement of a warrant.” He added that the city has not provided access logs or transparency about which officers are using the system.
Privacy safeguards and city response
Flock Safety has recently shortened its default data‑retention period and added extra safeguards. St. Petersburg police say searches are audited and improper use can result in disciplinary action. Nevertheless, DeFlock argues these measures are insufficient. “Even with these changes there is such a lack of accountability and oversight. I’m not comfortable with these cameras anywhere in our city,” Schira said.
The group also raised concerns about data sharing beyond local law‑enforcement. Through public‑records requests, DeFlock obtained a list of agencies with which the city may share ALPR data, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Schira warned that the system could potentially feed information to federal immigration authorities, a point that resonates with many residents wary of government overreach.
City Council action
City Councilmember Richie Floyd has expressed support for a deeper examination of the Flock contract and will bring the issue to the council agenda on Thursday. DeFlock is urging residents to contact all council members and request that the agreement be cancelled and the cameras removed. While some of the cameras have been vandalized, Schira stressed that the group does not condone property damage, noting that taxpayers would ultimately bear the cost of replacement.
“I understand why many councilmembers want to defer to the expertise of the police,” Schira said, “but I want them to listen to their constituents, too.” The organization’s website notes that the 2024 contract was approved through the council’s consent agenda without public debate, fueling frustration among citizens who feel the process was conducted behind closed doors.
Broader implications
The debate in St. Petersburg reflects a growing national conversation about the balance between public‑safety technology and individual privacy rights. While the Trump administration has emphasized law‑enforcement tools that protect communities, local groups like DeFlock argue that safeguards must be robust and transparent to preserve constitutional liberties. The outcome of the council’s discussion could set a precedent for how other Florida municipalities handle similar contracts.
Residents who wish to voice their concerns can attend the upcoming council meeting or submit written comments to the city clerk’s office. The future of the Flock Safety cameras—and the $730,000 contract—remains uncertain as the council prepares to weigh public safety benefits against privacy protections.
Original reporting: St. Pete Catalyst — read the source article.
