Details

Written by Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 01 May 2025

Created: 01 May 2025

Last Updated: 03 May 2025

Hits: 4358

(This letter was submitted by Mayra Kirkendall-Rodriguez)
Had it not been for Ms. Joanne Wallenstein of Scarsdale 10583, Scarsdale residents would not have learned that Scarsdale Village Board of Trustees voted on a contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance system. While for over a decade, I have reviewed both the Scarsdale School District Board of Trustees agenda as well as the Village's agenda on a bi-weekly basis, I saw nothing about the new surveillance system in the Village’s agenda. It was not until I read Ms. Wallenstein's article that I learned that Village personnel or officials had only placed the terms "Public Safety Equipment" in the April 8 Working Session agenda without any description or other terms. Not telling Scarsdale residents in detail beforehand what the Village mayor, trustees, and personnel were planning, is hardly a hallmark of transparency. Implementing a surveillance system behind residents’ backs could have very dangerous consequences to service providers who come to Scarsdale, as well as to residents and the very fabric of our village.

Had other residents and I known about the Village’s plan to implement a new, massive surveillance system, we could have attended the meeting. Scarsdale Village would benefit from hearing different perspectives. We as residents should have been allowed to discuss perceptions of increased public safety for actual increases in ICE and other federal law enforcement activity around private residences as domestic workers, landscapers and trades people are swept up on suspicion of immigration violations, irrespective of whether there is actual evidence.

For the last two weeks, I have been sending emails with questions to the Scarsdale Village Manager, the Mayor, and the Board of Trustees. None have been answered. I group my questions below:

Surveillance Technology

• Just because other towns might be using Flock Safety, why does Scarsdale need surveillance technology?
• Can you please provide Scarsdale crime data by type and year for the last 15 years?

Scarsdale School District

• Did you inform the Scarsdale School District Superintendent, the Superintendent’s Cabinet, or the Board of Education Trustees about your plan and how it could impact students, teachers, principals, and other staff?
• Did you make the seven Scarsdale teachers, principals, and staff union aware about your plan to significantly increase surveillance?

Engagement with Scarsdale Residents

Scarsdale Village trustees, mayor, or personnel did not survey residents to learn how we feel about privacy and freedom; that should have happened before the Board of Trustees voted secretly on the contract with Flock Safety.

One of the greatest things about Scarsdale is the incredible diversity of our residents in terms of personal and professional backgrounds. About 25% of our residents are foreign-born and the rest of us hail from numerous states. Why would the Scarsdale mayor and board of trustees not avail themselves of our free expertise?

• Other than discussing this topic amongst yourselves, did you speak to any residents in Scarsdale before the April 8th meeting? How about foreign-born ones? People of color? Security, technology, or risk experts? Lawyers?
• Why did you not hold a public hearing or a meeting about the surveillance issue?
• Why won't you hold a public meeting now to hear residents' views?
• What are the quantifiable benefits to the community of this surveillance system?
• How could you all vote on the surveillance issue when two new trustees had just come on Board? Had you all been discussing this behind closed doors with them? How could the new trustees have been prepared to vote so soon on an issue when they barely had been at Village Hall? Had the rest of you been talking about this issue for several years as your own memo on the Village site states?
• How is it that you could not put this issue on the Main agenda if you knew you would vote on it?

Flock Safety

• Did you consult the ACLU since one of its members wrote about Flock?
• Did you speak to municipal authorities in towns and states where Flock is being sued?
• What due diligence did you conduct on this technology and on Flock itself?
• Can the technology you are buying capture images? If so, what is the accuracy of this technology when used on people of different colors?
• What is Flock’s technology servicing record?
• Did you review Flock’s financial statements? What is the company’s financial health?

In mid-March 2025, Flock raised $275 million from Andreessen Horowitz, with backing from Greenoaks Capital, Bedrock Capital. Meritech Capital, Matrix Partners, Sands Capital, Founders Fund, Kleiner Perkins, Tiger Global, and Y Combinator. Did you conduct due diligence on these investors and how they could affect Flock Safety’s services and financial health?

• How was Flock chosen? Was there a Request for Proposal? What other companies were vetted?
• When will you share with residents the contract you signed with Flock Safety?

Oversight of Surveillance Technology, Data Security, and Use of Images

Flock Safety claims that its professionals will not sell the data they collect, that they are nonpartisan, and maintain audit trails for all data queries.

• What do you know about Flock’s professionals' biases?
• Are you aware of what their data safety protocols are?
• What documentation are you getting Flock to sign before you start implementing the technology in Scarsdale?
• What happens if Flock misuses the images and data their professionals collect?
• Who will supervise the use of this technology? What is the expertise of those individuals?

Federal Grant

The Scarsdale Mayor has stated several times that Scarsdale taxpayers will not pay for this technology and that Scarsdale has applied or is applying for a grant. Yet, most recently, the mayor told a resident that while he personally does not want taxpayers footing the bill, “it would be up to the Board to make that decision.” It is important for the Mayor and BOT to be transparent about the financing of this technology.

Nothing is ever free. If the government or a company gives anything for 'free,' it means that we the individuals are the product.
• When did you file the grant application to the Federal government to pay for the surveillance technology?
• When will you share the grant application with the public?
• Did someone in the Federal government reach out to you with the offer of this grant? Or who in Scarsdale asked for this grant?
• How is it that the Federal government is offering to pay for this technology and why? One has to ask why the federal government would offer funding for the product when the

Administration is making a public show of drastic cost-cutting at the same time

• What does the Federal government require of Scarsdale in exchange for this technology?
• Who would pay for servicing the technology once the initial grant is disbursed?
• If you do not get the grant, will taxpayers be on the hook for paying for this technology?
• If there were to be an error with the technology and someone were to sue the Village, who would pay for that damage?
• And if you are connected to the key individuals who would give Scarsdale a grant, is it possible for you to get funding for our schools, roads, and flood remediation? The return on investment for expenditures on education and infrastructure is far higher than for anything that this technology might accomplish.

Petition to the Village

I encourage Scarsdale residents to sign this petition requesting that the Village have an open forum to discuss this surveillance system. When and if I receive answers to my questions, I would be happy to share them with Scarsdale residents. It is important that we all can discuss the need for surveillance publicly and that the Scarsdale Village mayor, trustees, and personnel take your views into consideration seriously.

Mayra Kirkendall-Rodríguez is a financial risk consultant and trainer and has lived in Scarsdale almost 14 years.

See the Village's contract with Flock Safety here.

Details

Written by Mayra Kirkendall-Rodriguez

Published: 08 May 2025

Created: 08 May 2025

Last Updated: 08 May 2025

Hits: 1886

(The following was submitted by Mayra Kirdendall-Rodriguez)

Without alerting Scarsdale residents, on April 8 the Scarsdale Village Board voted on a contract with Flock Safety to buy its surveillance products and services. Neither the Board nor Village personnel sought any feedback from Scarsdale residents, Scarsdale School District administrators or the Board of Education, local civic groups or Scarsdale’s fifteen neighborhood associations, While I have inquired whether Village officials or personnel conducted any due diligence on Flock Safety, three weeks later, I am still waiting for a response.

Whether Scarsdale Village residents want surveillance technology, or not, is something that could have been discussed if Scarsdale Mayor Justin Arest and the Village Board had simply placed a notice in the Village Agenda inviting residents to opine on this important matter. For several years, numerous towns across America have been holding public forums to discuss surveillance technology. Why not in Scarsdale?

Even after a few residents and I wrote the Village Mayor, Board of Trustees, and Village Manager posing questions about the exclusion of resident input, whether any technology experts tested Flock’s technology, and lack of granular, annual data on crime in Scarsdale, Mayor Arest did not answer our questions and signed a contract with Flock Safety on April 29.

Also troubling is that the contract was signed without Scarsdale Village having any written policies on:

• what type of oversight will exist over Flock Safety, such as background checks of Flock employees working in Scarsdale,
• data collection, use and safekeeping,
• penalties if data is misused,
• cybersecurity and hacking measures to protect residents,
• residents’ privacy,
• sharing of data with federal government or other types of organizations,
• independent testing to verify accuracy of Flock’s technology and its success rates,
• and whether facial recognition technology or any other products will be added later without residents being informed.


Lack of Due Diligence and Written Processes

Were any Village officials or personnel aware of the fact that Flock Safety has had significant legal and regulatory challenges due to unauthorized installations and licensing issues in multiple states? Flock’s surveillance practices have raised constitutional concerns regarding privacy rights.

Flock Safety likes to brag that it has grown quickly and raised a lot of money. As someone who has spent decades working with banks, insurance, and energy companies, I have always found that significant growth is all too often a red flag for potential risks, which will show up sooner or later, such as weak processes for data collection and safekeeping, poor employee training, and even fraud. Just by virtue of being human beings, when companies are growing quickly, numerous risk management issues are often accidentally, or intentionally, overlooked.

Thus far, this is what I have found out about Flock Safety:

Flock is a Private Start-Up Tech Company

Flock Safety was founded in 2017. It is not publicly traded, so we do not have the company’s balance sheet or income statement information. We do not have audited information about how liquid or well-capitalized the company is. Yes, it had a recent, significant fund raising from venture capital firms. Is that enough to keep this company financially healthy so that it honors all its contractual obligations with Scarsdale?

We do not know who the company’s private sector or government clients are and do not know what their risk management policies are.

Flock Has Legal and Legislative Challenges Over Privacy Concerns and Other Issues

Public sources reveal that Flock's Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) systems are the subject of legal scrutiny concerning privacy rights. Flock Safety’s technology does more than typical ALPR technology; it captures additional details such as vehicle make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics such as bumper stickers.

• ACLU: In 2022, the American Civil Liberties Union published a white paper on Flock Safety’s unprecedented nationwide mass surveillance goals and technological capabilities. ACLU

• California: Flock Safety hired the mayor of Moreno Valley to promote its technology. Ulises Cabrera now claims Flock wrongfully terminated him, in part, because he refused to use his position as mayor to benefit Flock, according to a lawsuit Cabrera filed against Flock in November 2024. TechCrunch

• Colorado: On Monday, May 5, 2025, the Denver City Council rejected unanimously a contract extension with Flock Safety for more than $600,000 to continue operating the more than 100 automated license plate recognition cameras throughout the city. Denver 7

• Connecticut: Residents in Colchester filed a lawsuit alleging that the use of Flock Safety’s ALPRs violated their Fourth Amendment rights by enabling warrantless tracking of their movements. Connecticut Inside Investigator

• Virginia: In Norfolk, a federal judge allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the city for using over 170 Flock ALPRs without a warrant, potentially violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. Forbes and Institute for Justice. The Virginia legislature is debating a bill to limit the days that Flock Safety can keep data from 30 to 21 days. Virginia Mercury

Flock Has Unauthorized Installations and Licensing Issues

• Florida: In February 2023, Flock installed an ALPR on the John’s Pass Bridge in Treasure Island without approval from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). FDOT demanded its removal, which occurred in November 2023. A subsequent review revealed that over 800 Flock ALPRs in Florida were out of compliance with state regulations. EFF and Forbes

• North Carolina: The North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board sued Flock Safety in March 2023 for installing ALPRs without the required license. A court injunction in November 2023 prohibited further installations without proper licensing. In March 2024, Flock agreed to apply for the necessary license by June 1, 2024. News Observer

• South Carolina: Between 2022 and 2024, the South Carolina Department of Transportation identified more than 200 unpermitted Flock ALPRs on public roads. In July 2023, the agency issued a moratorium on new installations and ordered a safety and compliance review of existing devices. TechDirt

• Texas: In September 2024, the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a cease-and-desist order to Flock, stating that Flock was operating as a private security business without the required license. Flock responded by initiating the certification process and anticipated obtaining the necessary license shortly thereafter. FOX 26 Houston

There are Questions about Flock’s Technology’s Accuracy

• California: Berkeley Police Department has found that Flock Technology does not work as well at night. Berkeleyside

• New York: A study by surveillance research firm IPVM revealed that the Flock LPRs misread license plates approximately 10% of the time. Additional errors included incorrect vehicle make identification and multiple readings of the same plate. These findings raised concerns among Syracuse city council members about the potential for wrongful identification and the broader implications for privacy and civil liberties. Central Current

Turning This Ship Around

Scarsdale Village officials can still turn this ship around. As over 240 residents and I are requesting, the Village should have a public forum to hear different perspectives about surveillance technology and Flock Safety. At a recent work session, a couple of Village trustees talked about having events to bring the community together. How can we be together when the Mayor and Board of Trustees do not even want to hear our views about surveillance technology?

Mayra Kirkendall-Rodríguez is a financial risk consultant and trainer and has lived in Scarsdale almost 14 years.

Details

Written by Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 23 April 2025

Created: 23 April 2025

Last Updated: 24 April 2025

Hits: 1040

Two weeks ago, the Board of Trustees approved a last minute resolution to purchase $1.5mm in surveillance equipment including drones, cameras and license plate readers from Flock Safety. The proposal was reviewed at a work session prior to the meeting which you can watch here - and the resolution was a late addition to the to the Village Board agenda and was not included in the meeting materials.

In response to community concerns about the prospect of increased neighborhood scrutiny, privacy and data sharing, along with questions about prior notice, Mayor Justin Arest made the following statement at the April 22, 2025 meeting of the Village Board.

“In government, process is more than procedure: it’s the foundation of public trust. It gives residents confidence that decisions are made thoughtfully, with integrity, even when they may disagree with the outcome. But process isn’t something we can champion only when we like the result. It must be a constant, guiding principle. That’s a standard we take seriously, and one we are always working to strengthen.

In recent weeks, a few meetings have included agenda items added late in the process. That’s not typical, and it’s certainly not our goal. It reflects a time when we were short-staffed and finalizing critical materials close to meeting dates. That said, we hear the concern, and we agree; this is not a practice we intend to continue.

We are tightening our internal procedures to ensure agenda items are posted earlier, materials are more complete, and descriptions are clearer. The Village Manager’s Office will begin implementing improvements to ensure meeting notices are more informative and easier for residents to engage with. While occasional time-sensitive matters may arise, they will be clearly flagged and treated as the exception, not the norm.

One recent item that has drawn public attention is the Village’s adoption of a public safety technology initiative, including a contract with Flock Safety. Let me be clear: this initiative was discussed at a properly noticed, publicly accessible Work Session. The agenda listed the item as “Public Safety Equipment”- a broad term, yes, but not an attempt to obscure. While we acknowledge backup materials would have been helpful, they were not yet ready. The purpose of the Work Session was exactly what it should be: to allow the Board to receive briefings, ask questions, and hold discussion in a public setting. When sensitive law enforcement information needed to be reviewed, we appropriately moved into Executive Session, as allowed by law. The resolution is now online and as soon as the contract is finalized will be as well.

Some residents have raised concerns about privacy, surveillance, and federal overreach. While these views reflect a handful of voices, they deserve a respectful and direct response.

We are aware of concerns in other jurisdictions about unauthorized federal access to similar technologies. Let me be clear: such access, if it occurred, would violate the terms of our agreement with our vendor, Flock Safety. Any such breach, without proper legal process, would prompt immediate termination of the program. Our contract includes safeguards to protect residents’ rights, and we are committed to enforcing them. Protecting civil liberties is not optional, it is essential.

As for funding, the pilot is contingent upon receiving a federal public safety innovation grant. This is not a direct award from the Executive Branch, nor does it bind us to any long-term obligation.

Like any responsible local government, we explore non-property-tax revenue opportunities to offset costs. This grant is one such opportunity that we have worked on with the offices of our Senators and Congressman to apply for and, if it’s not awarded, we are not obligated to proceed. In the current climate, and we just heard from our congressman that there may not be much opportunity for Federal money this year, we believe that public safety funding has the best chance of success.

It’s also worth noting that public safety technologies like these are not unique to Scarsdale. Communities across Westchester, and beyond, are exploring similar tools to help their police departments respond effectively and keep residents safe. Many of our neighboring municipalities have already implemented these technologies. Our responsibility is to evaluate these technologies through the lens of Scarsdale’s values: with care, caution, and accountability. Just because a tool has sparked debate elsewhere doesn’t mean we should dismiss its potential here. What matters is how we use it, how we protect privacy, and how we ensure it serves, not compromises, the public good.

Should the initiative proceed, it will be time-limited, strictly governed, and subject to regular oversight. No permanent infrastructure will be installed. Any future decision to expand would require further public input and Board review.

We welcome continued conversation, and we welcome your input.

Ultimately, our responsibility is to do what is right for Scarsdale, openly, responsibly, and with care. To everyone who has taken the time to engage, thank you. We may not always agree, but we are listening. Your voices are heard, and your perspectives matter.”

During the Public Comments portion of the meeting, Josh Frankel of 45 Black Birch Lane addressed the Board. He said, “I am late due to the demise of the Inquirer. I want to speak against this agreement with Flock Safety.”

He read quotes from an article that appeared in The Guardian on March 11, 2025, called, "ICE in Westchester Accessed Car Trackers in Sanctuary Cities that Could Help in Riads Files Show. Westchester County has laws limiting cooperation but ICE has accessed trove of data that hold license plate readers

Frankel read information about data sharing between the County Police, and ICE.

He said, “The documents, which Westchester County police made public in response to a freedom of information law request by a legal non-profit and shared exclusively with the Guardian, include a list of its “users”, or organizations that had access to this database as of February 2022. The non-profit asked not to be named to avoid compromising the federal grants the organization was awarded. In addition to Ice and the DHS, agencies listed as having access include the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Secret Service and the FBI.

A separate list details individual users who have access to the database. Among the users were five individuals who had email addresses that ended in @ice.dhs.gov and two people with Secret Service email addresses ending in USSS.dhs.gov. There were 44 users with email addresses that end in FBI.gov, 40 with DOJ.gov addresses and just over a dozen featuring DEA.gov.”
Furthermore, the article says, “Privacy and civil liberty experts argue these technologies create a vast surveillance dragnet wherein the movement of every vehicle in the US is being tracked and examined regardless of whether there is an active investigation.”

“Residents of Norfolk, Virginia, sued the city for allegedly violating their fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by installing license plate readers from another Rekor competitor called Flock Safety. When announcing the contract to install 172 Flock cameras across Norfolk, the police chief, Mark Talbot, said his office wanted to create “a nice curtain of technology” that would make it “difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere”. Lee Schmidt, one of the plaintiffs, said four of the cameras had fenced in his neighborhood.”

“He was outraged by the loss of privacy,” said Michael Soyfer, an attorney at the Institute of Justice who is representing the plaintiffs on this case. “He noticed that he basically couldn’t leave his neighborhood without one of the cameras picking it up.”

Frankel asked the Mayor if this project would proceed if there was no federal funding available, and Arest replied, “I think there is a need, but that will be up to the Board.” About the story in The Guardian, Arest said, “The Westchester story is concerning. We want to find out more about it.”