I spoke at a recent City Council meeting about the Flock camera contract not because I distrust our police, but because residents deserve to understand how systems that collect data on everyone are governed once they’re in place.

I recognize that the Marshalltown Police Department has credited these cameras with generating investigative leads, and I don’t dispute their usefulness. But usefulness alone cannot be the standard for systems that collect and store broad public data.

Flock Safety emphasizes that customers control routine data sharing, and I take those statements at face value. My concern is not about voluntary sharing, but about what happens outside routine use. Under the contract, the vendor can respond directly to information requests from state or federal authorities without a local decision and without guaranteed notice to the city. That distinction matters, because it means data can leave local control even if everyone involved acts ethically and in good faith.

This is not an argument against surveillance tools outright. If MPD determines certain systems are useful and can be governed locally, that’s a policy discussion worth having. The problem with the current contract is that it outsources critical decision‒making authority to a private vendor. And this is not theoretical: in Mountain View, Calif., officials shut down all 30 Flock cameras after discovering a “national lookup” toggle and a long‒running “statewide lookup” had enabled 600,000+ searches in a year by 250+ outside agencies, including ATF, the U.S. Air Force, and the GSA Inspector General — without the city’s knowledge.

Recent state actions have also shown that cities may have limited ability to impose additional safeguards through local policy alone, which makes reliance on intent rather than structure even riskier.

Given these constraints, it’s reasonable to ask whether continuing this contract is the best long‒term choice. At minimum, residents deserve a clear and unhurried public discussion about where control, responsibility, and risk ultimately lie. Choosing to exit the contract through the non‒appropriation clause would not be a rejection of public safety, but a recognition of governance limits.