Vallejo surveillance board tightens rules for controversial gunshot detection tech

VALLEJO – Vallejo’s Surveillance Advisory Board approved a tighter policy for use of Flock Safety’s gunshot detection technology Thursday and directed its subcommittee to draft a new audit plan for how the Vallejo Police Department uses all Flock products. 

The board said its ad hoc subcommittee will craft an audit plan to monitor how the Vallejo Police Department uses surveillance technology by the Georgia-based Flock for the Vallejo City Council to consider. The plan will cover how the police department uses all Flock products, as the city already has a contract to use Flock's automated license plate reader cameras. 

The council earlier this fall called for clearer guardrails over the Raven gunshot detection program, out of concern for whether Flock’s data would be shared with outside law enforcement agencies without the city’s permission. 

Earlier this week, Flock also had a contract renewal rejected in Oakland, when the City Council said it would not approve a more than $2 million expansion after facing strong opposition from the public.

Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission, a volunteer board which advises the council and Oakland Police Department on the pros and cons of new technologies, refused to endorse the police department’s plan out of concern about Flock’s potential for sharing data with federal law enforcement agencies, including related to immigration enforcement and investigating people seeking abortion services.

Flock did not attend the Vallejo board meeting Tuesday, but provided a presentation touting its successes, claiming that in its partnership with more than 2,000 cities, its technology has been connected to a “60% local crime reduction” in those cities. 

In discussing the use policy for the Vallejo Police Department’s use of Flock, the board expressed concern over whether Flock will agree to stronger legal wording over how data is stored and shared. 

Chief Assistant City Attorney Randy Risner said that the same concern from the City Council, when it last considered the Raven contract, was due to a staff error - the council did not see the correct contract which contained guardrail language, using the same language as was used in the contract for Flock’s ALPR cameras. 

“We presented them with the wrong document,” Risner said. “It went to council without those changes we had already made, and they were concerned about the contract which was the wrong contract. We then got the correct contract and saw the changes we’d made before, but I also had a meeting with Flock attorneys and staff and asked for some additional changes.” 

He added that the council also did not get a clarification that current state law contains two sections preventing data sharing with federal immigration authorities and with law enforcement agencies outside of California. Vallejo police were previously sharing data with agencies outside of California, in apparent violation of that law.

Data collected by Flock’s systems is currently held on the Flock website for 30 days and can be accessed from police vehicles and by other California law enforcement agencies. 

The board also asked to make clear what happens when data is used in investigations. Deputy Police Chief Robert Knight said that in those situations, gunshot data can be downloaded and booked as evidence beyond the 30-day retention period. It wouldn’t be open to public review and is not available for other agencies or entities, he added. 

“This whole paragraph is a safeguard,” Knight said, referring to the suggested section on protecting employee access to retained data. “We don’t just have employees who, willy nilly, have a bunch of data from various systems, ALPR or gunshot data. They have specific things they have to do with that data.”

The board was also hesitant to craft a policy which could be too general about data from various incidents Raven captures, such as from fireworks and sideshows. Knight said that the board could revisit the policy later to be more specific about handling data from those incidents.

Presenting city staff’s adjustments to the policy, Risner said there are two master sections covering data retention within the existing Flock privacy agreement, which the board has reviewed before. He said he has made additional changes to strengthen the contract’s language around control of the program’s data, which were sent to Flock. “I have not heard back from Flock yet,” he said.

Surveillance board Chair Simon Lee noted the language saying that in emergencies, Flock may disclose the data. He recommended allowing Flock to preserve the data, but requiring the company to promptly seek the city’s written authorization before disclosing it to any agency.

The newly edited use policy must get to the council before the end of the year, due to funding restrictions, Risner said.

When several board members criticized the fact that there was no existing audit plan draft presented, Risner said that they could tell the council to move forward with the Raven technology while crafting a new plan. He said that the board subcommittee won't necessarily have to create a full draft on its own before the end of the year, since the City Council will soon consider and take over the plan. 

“It’s going to require significant work on the part of the board … you’re going to have to take a look at all that Flock’s providing and come up with your own ideas on how to audit the system,” Risner said.