By Beth David, Editor
The Acushnet Selectboard voted to suspend the use of Flock camera technology at its meeting on 9/2/26. The town has one Flock Camera at the coner of Main and South Main Streets.
SB member Ryan Rezendes had asked for the item to be discussed after finding out about some of the controversy surrounding the technology. The cameras are called license readers, but they actually take a photo of the back of all vehicles that pass through an intersection. The camera then records make, model, color, any identifying marks such as dents, bumper stickers, etc., anything the camera can see.
“I’ve been skeptical of this technology for a while,” said Mr. Rezendes.
He got the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the police department and Flock, but it was not signed. He pointed out several places that caused concern for him, including that the data belong to Flock, not the town; Flock can cancel the contract with 30 days notice, but the town has to give 90 days; Flock’s liability is limited to $100.
Mr. Rezendes said many constituents called him and he shared their concerns that the cameras are an invasion of privacy and are “infrastructure for a surveillance state.”
Police Chief, Gary Coppa, told the board that the Flock has been a great tool for the department. It has helped recover missing people, and in a “bunch of investigations.”
He said they only have one camera, “But that one camera gives us access to all the other cameras around the country.”
Chief Coppa said the technology is not as invasive as other technologies, such as cell phones and GPS in vehicles. He acknowledged that it has been abused in other jurisdictions. Only one officer, Det. Sgt. Jeremy Fontes, has access to it in Acushnet. If anyone wants the data, they need to go through him.
Chief Coppa’s recommendation was to keep the camera.
Everyone made it a point to say they were not questioning the integrity of Acushnet’s PD.
However, as Acushnet has access to other cameras, other jurisdictions have access to Acushnet’s camera.
SB chairperson Kevin Gaspar said that the town has other cameras around town that can do the job.
“I also don’t like the eye in the sky watching everything that everybody’s doing,” said Mr. Gaspar. “And I do think it’s a civil rights issue.”
There was quite a bit of discussion around the MOU, too. It was unclear who signed it, or how it got activated. The initial trial year was paid for with confiscated assets, but Mr. Gaspar and Mr. Hinckley both said they did not remember signing the longer term MOU, which continued the use of the camera.
Mr. Gaspar also insisted he never would have signed the MOU in front of him. He said what stuck out to him was that Flock only needed 30 days, but the town needed to give 90 to end it. He said that would have come right out of the contract if he had been asked to sign it.
“If they only have to give me 30 days notice, I’ll be damned if I’m giving you 90 days notice,” he said. “You’re discontinuing in 30 days, yet I’ve got to suck rocks and give you 90 days to discontinue it. I don’t think so.”
SB member Bob Hinckley noted that the data belonged to Flock and not the town, as a major concern to him. He made the motion to suspend use of the camera until they can come up with some kind of language and protocols.
All three agreed that the state needs to provide some guidelines on use of the technology.
Mr. Gaspar reiterated that Acushnet PD has had no incidents of misuse. But, he noted other departments have access to the camera. He specifically noted that New Bedford’s cases of abuse have not necessarily been investigated thoroughly enough. He said they surely used not just New Bedford’s cameras, but surrounding towns’ cameras, too
Amanda Lilley asked that the board not just suspend use of the camera, but physically take them down or cover them. She said she did not trust that they would stay off. She also said they need to look at procurement laws to see if they were followed when getting into the contract.
One resident cautioned that different models have different capabilities, such as picking up electronic signals, and covering them up may not stop them from collecting data. Anything connected to the cloud can also be upgraded, he said, so its capabilities can change.
He said he backed the “men in blue,” but this is a “big overreach.”
He also said that the excuse is to help and be safe, with a “nanny state,” but totalitarians like to use it as a means of control.
“I just want it on the record to say that this is a problem and it does need to come down,” he said. “It can’t remain.”
One man said that in a recent case, a man got arrested, but it was his brother who had been using his car. The man had to prove his innocence.
“He was guilty until proven innocent. So this is totally backwards to the Constitution that you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty,” he said.
Jesse Ellis told the board he started out against the cameras, but after speaking to some law enforcement friends, he has a different view. He said the technology has clearly been helpful in important case. He said they could limit the cameras to photos only.
He said they can make sure access is strictly regulated.
Mr. Gaspar asked how the technology follows a car. Det. Sgt. Fontes said a license plate is put on a “hot list,” then it will get flagged if seen by any camera in the network, and it will alert the jurisdiction that hot-listed the car.
Mr. Gaspar asked how long the car is on the list. Det. Sgt. Fontes said it went from 30 to 7 days.
Mr. Gaspar noted that the only reason it got changed to seven days is because the CEO got pressured.
“The problem I still go back to is I don’t believe that CEO one bit,” said Mr. Gaspar. “Whether it’s 30 days, 7 days, I believe, and I’m talking to a lot of people that are tech savvy, that goes to the cloud it’s there forever.”
He said it might get dumped from the local server, but it is still out there.
Chief Coppa also expressed dismay that he had not received any calls from the public about the camera. He said it was clear residents had been concerned and spoke to Mr, Rezendes and other board members.
Chief Coppa noted that he has an open door policy and welcomes feedback from the public.
The matter will be on the next agenda with an update on the use of the cameras, the MOU, and the steps the town needs to take to legally take the camera down.
In other business, the board approved a used car license for Katie Pereira at 625 Main Street for 12 cars outside and three inside.
Ms. Pereira had already received a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a different number of cars. Mr. Gaspar made it clear that the SB is the licensing authority that decides the number of cars. They issued the same regulations as a previous license for that property some years ago that has never been used. Later in the meeting they officially rescinded that license.
The board also approved a changed of officers/directors for New England Farms. Donald Higgins Jr. has bought out his partner and is now the sole owner.
•••
Click here to download the 9/10/26 issue: 09-10-26 OLOA Feast
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News with PayPal
