(AUBURN, CA) – Auburn will hold a public forum in September as opposition to Flock Safety surveillance cameras grows across Gold Country. The debate has intensified alongside renewed scrutiny of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) following a June 29 Supreme Court decision addressing Fourth Amendment concerns over police tracking using Google data. OpGov.News reported that the ruling could have broader implications for surveillance technologies like Flock.
By August 6, change.org petitions emerged calling for an end to Flock contracts in Auburn, Roseville and other nearby regions. On August 11 in neighboring Nevada County, Grass Valley Police Chief Alex Gammelgard said that the department has “decided to to indefinitely suspend…fixed point ALPR readers within our city limits, exercising our ability to cancel our contract with Flock Safety.” The developments have helped turn what began as scattered concerns over surveillance technology into a broader regional debate over privacy, data access and the use of automated license plate readers by local governments and law enforcement.
In Placer County, the issue surfaced during public comment at recent Auburn City Council and Placer County Board of Supervisors meetings, despite not being on either agenda. In Auburn, the comments prompted the council to direct staff to organize a September community forum addressing the city’s use of ALPR technology, including “benefits and problems,” data use, transparency, contract terms, and applicable laws. Interim City Manager James Lindsay said, “the direction has been given to conduct a town hall on the topic of ALPR cameras within the city of Auburn.”
At Auburn City Hall, Nick Zaggeras, a longtime Auburn resident and public-safety professional, told the council, “I do believe that I'm entitled to my privacy and I'm entitled to my family's privacy.” He concluded, “I would like the Flock cameras removed.”
Jared Level called Flock “a new generation of intrusive mass surveillance products” and warned that “our movements and appearance are the raw ingredients.” He urged officials to “cancel the Flock contract.”
Beyond discourse, there has been destruction. At least four cameras in the Auburn area have reportedly been vandalized in less than four months. During a City Council meeting, officials discussed two cameras belonging to the Auburn Police Department that had been stolen and thrown into a waterway. Separate reports indicate that a third camera, belonging to the Placer County Sheriff’s Department, was likewise removed at that time.
OpGov.News has obtained exclusive images of a more recent incident. An Auburn resident, identified by the first name Robert, said a Flock camera near his home was recently “cut down with” what appeared to be “a saw zaw.”
(Photo Source: Robert, an Auburn Resident)
Of the cameras destroyed in April, change.org petition creator Kurtis Ostrom says, “we need to understand what frustrations would drive a person to take it upon themselves to destroy surveillance tech and risk being charged with multiple crimes in the process.”
Digital activism has expanded alongside the public demonstrations. Residents have created websites, and social-media pages, shared videos, promoted petitions, and organized across Auburn, Roseville, and other nearby regions like Nevada County and Elk Grove. An Auburn change.org petition launched August 12 by Ostrom has at this time reached 978 signatures toward a goal of 1,000, with 503 shares and 19 written or video comments. A corresponding Roseville petition also created by Ostrom had 377 signatures toward a goal of 500, with 160 shares and 4 comments. These numbers have been steadily increasing.
Online comments on the petition, which strives for “transparency, accountability, and a real say in whether Auburn becomes a surveillance town,” largely mirror concerns voiced before the council, particularly regarding privacy and the Fourth Amendment.
One commenter wrote, “FLOCK IS A NO-GO IN THE 530! PROTECT CITIZEN PRIVACY!” At least two others, as in Auburn City Hall, cited the familiar warning, “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” One Facebook page called "The Voices of Placer posted this image:
(Photo Source: The Voices of Placer / Facebook)
But one Nextdoor user offered a rebuttal to the anti-Flock argument. In a post on the topic Kevin Quinn said, “Don’t break the law then you don’t need to worry about Flock cameras.” This is in alignment with the benefits posited by Flock Safety and the Auburn Police Department. Flock Safety says it “builds technology to deter crime, respond to emergencies, and investigate safety incidents.“ Auburn Police says it uses the cameras to capture “objective evidence without compromising on individual privacy.” In an effort to provide transparency, the police department has made its ALPR policies and use data accessible to the public.
Auburn Police has also pointed to public-safety outcomes. As OpGov.News previously reported, Police Chief Bryan Morrison told the City Council in an annual report that arrests and overall crime in Auburn declined in 2025.
Still, the growing resistance in Gold Country extends across multiple forms of activism: public testimony, petitions, social media, archival-video research, and, in some cases, vandalism and theft. Auburn’s September public forum is expected to provide the city and its residents an opportunity to examine the technology, its use and safeguards, and ultimately the future of Flock surveillance cameras in the community.
To add to or correct any information in this report, please contact me at robert.m@lead4earth.org or leave a comment below with your thoughts.
0
0
Comments