Floyd County residents urge removal of Flock surveillance cameras, citing privacy risks

Dozens of Floyd County residents pressed supervisors on June 23 to remove so-called "Flock" surveillance cameras installed on county roads, arguing the devices record long-term movement patterns and create privacy and civil-liberties risks.

At the public-comment portion of the board's regular meeting, speakers from multiple districts said the cameras are operated by a private vendor under a sheriff's office grant and are capable of logging where people travel, when and how often. "These systems create a record of where people travel, when they travel, how often they travel," said JC Clay, who identified himself as the director of a national data analytics company and a Floyd County parent. "AI systems can analyze patterns, identify relationships, and generate conclusions about people's habits, associations, and routines." (JC Clay)

Others cited reports of vendor terms changing and of cameras with poor security. "There have been reports of Flock cameras exposed to the open internet where people could live-stream them 24/7," said Brandon Decker, a resident who urged the board to ask Sheriff Craig to end any partnership and to block county funding for the program. Several speakers—many of them long-time residents—told the board they had not been notified that grant-funded cameras were being installed in their neighborhoods.

Board members told speakers they heard the concerns and described the legal and institutional limits on the supervisors' authority. County leaders said the cameras were placed and are controlled by the sheriff's office, not by the board, and that the initial equipment was funded via a sheriff'led grant rather than county appropriations. "We don't authorize them, we can't make them move," said the chair during an early announcement. The chair also said the county will forward public comments to the sheriff and to the commonwealth's attorney for consideration.

But several supervisors said they would pursue possible administrative and legal avenues. The board said it had asked the Virginia Department of Transportation to review whether some cameras had been placed in VDOT right-of-way without permission and that the county attorney would examine potential local policy responses. "Surveillance is never a good thing to be widespread," one supervisor said; another said the board would consult the sheriff and the county attorney to determine what actions are legally available.

Speakers urged the board to use its budgetary leverage over the sheriff's office and to consider a local ordinance or a formal resolution. "If the proper channels of government fail to act," one resident warned, "the men and women of this county are prepared to pursue lawful action." The board did not adopt any ordinance at the meeting but committed to follow up with legal review and outreach to law enforcement and VDOT.

What happens next: the board will ask the county attorney to review contractual and right-of-way issues, will request formal responses from the sheriff's office, and staff said they would report back to the supervisors with recommended next steps.