Little Compton council tables proposal to contract with Flock Safety after privacy concerns

The Little Compton Town Council voted to table a proposed contract with Flock Safety for automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) cameras after extended public comment criticizing the technology's privacy and data‑sharing practices. The council took the procedural vote after several residents and privacy advocates urged delay or rejection.

Why it mattered: Residents and outside advocates argued that the cameras collect more than just license plates, that collected data is searchable and shared widely with law enforcement agencies, and that the company’s policies permit broad reuse or sale of data. Those concerns, councilors said, warranted further review before any contract was approved.

Jay Miller, president of the Sagonet Meadows Homeowners Association, told the council the cameras create a searchable vehicle database and capture vehicle characteristics beyond license plates. "The cameras capture images of passing cars and use AI to convert them into searchable data which is then stored on a massive database owned by Flock Safety," he said, and asked, "Do the town residents want these cameras? Do the cameras make us safer? And at what cost?"

Randall Rose of Rhode Islanders for Personal Privacy said he appreciated the council's decision to table the contract. "I'm glad the motion was introduced to table this contract with Flock," Rose said, praising the council's deliberative process.

Not all speakers urged rejection. Vincent Kennedy, a resident, framed the question as an economic tradeoff and said he does not expect privacy while transiting public roads. He urged the council to require a clear cost‑benefit analysis for law‑enforcement applications.

Council action and next steps: After public comment the council took a voice vote and tabled the proposal, meaning no action was taken and the item could be brought back later, but would restart the process. Councilors did not adopt any contract or funding decisions at the meeting. The council also placed related correspondence on file for further review.

The matter remains pending; the council did not set a specific return date. The tabling means any future consideration would need to start from the beginning of the process.