Erik Vitaglione walked his dog in Norwalk a few months ago, when he noticed a black camera pointed at the street.
He didn't know what to make of it at first; he said he wondered if the camera could "sniff" or intercept the wireless signal off his phone.
“I was legit paranoid,” he said.
The camera looked distinctive; it reminded him of cameras he saw online when he went down a "YouTube rabbit hole." He discovered the camera was made by Flock Safety, the technology company that manufactures surveillance equipment. He said he must have walked past the camera for months before he noticed it.
Flock has consistently described its products as crime-fighting tools. But various police departments retain the data – and some officers across the country have abused the technology.
Vitaglione said he’s worried about what local police will do with data collected from Flock’s license plate readers, or LPRs. He said the cameras are invasive.
“You want 30 days and 45 gigabytes of me walking my dog,” Vitaglione said.
Vitaglione wants the cameras taken down, and he’s partnered with other residents and privacy advocates on social media, setting up an Instagram page, DeFlock CT.
He’s not alone. Residents across the state are upset. Privacy advocates and experts from ACLU Connecticut say the cameras are capable of mass surveillance.
Flock’s LPRs have popped up across Connecticut and the country over the last few years. Half of the state’s local police departments have been using Flock products.
Local police acknowledge the cameras are divisive, but say the LPRs have helped them solve crimes, from murders to locating missing people.
As public backlash grows, more and more municipalities in Connecticut have canceled or paused installing Flock cameras, and more may follow.
Vitaglione, a former unaffiliated candidate for mayor, says he hopes his advocacy can get more residents to pack municipal meetings and question-and-answer sessions with police departments.
“Talk to your council people or your elected representatives to deal with the local contract, talk to your state and your state senators and your state representatives to do something about it,” Vitaglione said.
The LPRs are different compared to other surveillance cameras, said Daniel Moak, a Connecticut College associate professor who teaches government and international relations.
"This is not simply a camera taking a single shot of your license plate at one moment in time and then – that's it – that could then be accessed later in time,” Moak said. “These are then coupled with AI and software connected to an entire network of cameras.”
Moak said the cameras, when coupled with others, can figure out a person’s daily routine. Moak said there’s a risk the Flock data could be accessed by other parties, although Connecticut’s legislature passed a law this year mandating strict privacy provisions, including deleting data after 21 days. The state law also prohibits police from sharing that data with federal law enforcement unless a warrant is issued.
Flock did not respond to Connecticut Public’s request for comment by Tuesday afternoon.
In response to public outcry, Flock issued new recommendations that data be retained for seven days, down from 30.
But at a recent press conference with police leaders in Connecticut, Flock’s chief legal officer, Dan Haley, pushed back on claims of mass surveillance.
“The biggest piece of misinformation out there is this notion that there’s a vast nationwide database that can be queried to track people’s movements and that’s simply not the case,“ Haley said.
Tense meetings in Milford
Residents have been showing up and sounding off about the cameras at town-hall discussions and town council meetings across Connecticut.
Milford has been in the spotlight following a particularly tense meeting earlier in August. The city’s legislature ordered a temporary pause on additional cameras, according to the Milford Police Department.
Later in the month, Police Chief Keith Mello held a meeting with residents , where he laid out the benefits of the cameras as crime-fighting tools.
The audience jeered at Mello multiple times during the hours-long meeting.
“We think and strongly believe that has a lot of value,” Mello said. “At least it's got to have some value. And so that's why we put it in there.”
The audience was made up of conservatives and liberals. Many hated the cameras for different reasons, but all said they felt the cameras violated their privacy.
“It basically treats everyone guilty until they're proven innocent, treating all of us like we're suspects,” said Sarah Wood, who founded DeFlock Milford.
One resident, Arcangelo Petretta, referred to his great uncle, who he said worked as a police chief in Italy when it was under fascist rule and compared the Flock cameras to his relative’s actions during that time.
“You're walking in his steps now,” Petretta said. “Is that what you want your legacy to be?”
Mello declined to answer directly.
Others, like Tony DeBlase, were skeptical of the cameras’ effectiveness. But he was also angered over the state’s efforts to prevent the federal government from using Flock data to help find and deport undocumented immigrants.
“You're not arresting the people that are here illegally committing the crimes against American citizens,” DeBlase said. “That is unconstitutional, and that constitutes treason. I'm done. You need to resign.”
There was just one audience member who liked the cameras and spoke. Daniel Bedeker, a retired Milford police officer, said he had given up much of his privacy willingly, which made the Flock cameras a moot point.
“I have a State Farm app that will save me like 10% off my insurance, and they basically track everywhere my car goes,” Bedeker said. “I've voluntarily given up that right. But I just see this as a tool.”
As municipalities meet about cameras, state lawmakers are chiming in, too. Gov. Ned Lamont recently issued guidance that asks towns to pause camera installation while a state police agency conducts a review of issues surrounding the license plate readers.
State Sen. Bob Duff, who represents Norwalk, says the state should broaden privacy protections.
“We needed to get our arms around this so that we can write a good law or build upon the law that we passed this year,” Duff said. “And the only way for us to do that is ask for a pause on installing new ones.”
Issues with speed cameras, too
Vitaglione said another controversy has helped his cause. The state’s automated speed camera program, passed in 2023, led to automated cameras near school zones. That program, too, has generated controversy from residents angered over similar privacy concerns and tickets.
“The advent of the speed cameras and really how much they're taxing their citizenry definitely helped bring Flock to more [people]” Vitaglione said. “It actually helped bring anti-LPR awareness to a much greater level.”
Vitaglione recently stood near the Flock camera that launched him on this journey, Cars whizzed by.
A few months ago, someone had vandalized the camera with green paint. Someone else appears to have tried to cover up the camera with a sticker.
Vitaglione said the device failed at part of its mission.
“Now when I look at it, I kind of see like a failed move to discreetly oppress people,” he said.
Vitaglione said he does not agree with vandalism. Instead, he wants residents to advocate for the removal of the cameras through the democratic process.
Vitaglione said just months ago, no one was really talking about the cameras. But now, they are.
“I was talking within our advocacy group, and I'm like, ‘Yo, five months ago we were paranoid, and right now we're just on the pulse of sort of popular consensus,’ which is nice,” Vitaglione said “But we still need to do something about it.”
