Woodstock is under contract with Flock Safety for 12 Falcon “alpr” cameras. This one makes lucky number 13.

It's not clear if we're paying for this one or just providing our data for funsies. If we are paying for it, it's not on the books under Flock Safety, and that is concerning.

We’ve reached out to WPD Police Chief John Lieb, Mayor Michael Turner, Woodstock City Council, and Woodstock City Manager Roscoe Stelford for comment. Here are the questions I posed to Chief Lieb:

1. Is this one of the Falcon cameras that Woodstock is under contract for with Flock Safety? I’m under the impression that Woodstock leases 12 cameras. It’s this an additional camera or did this one get repurposed from somewhere else in town? If it is an additional camera are taxpayers paying for it?

2. What’s the purpose here? Why do you have a need for a mobile license plate camera? Are you targeting a high crime area? Are you tracking a specific threat?

3. Are you combining license plate reads with radar scans? Is this being used for traffic enforcement?

Contact your city officials.

Sign our petition.

Please join us as we present the signatures we’ve collected to city council on August 18th. RSVP here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScWVBuZsqkGOj4F3rZb9o0GgEUAgpmK0yaB-7Fcga7Zre5Kvw/viewform

They show his apparent disdain for members of the community who spoke out against the proposed Flock Safety contract which was approved 4-3 in February 2026. It also shows that perhaps his due diligence was not performed in a neutral manner befitting a multi-year government contract.

FOIA request here.

Contact information for your city officials can be found here.

If you’re concerned or confused about surveillance and want to learn more about the Flock cameras being installed the Square, join us at The Records Department at 6:00 PM for a short informational discussion. Learn why members of the community oppose the cameras, ask questions, and hear the concerns.

For those who wish to take further action, our petition will be presented to City Council at 7:00 PM following the meeting, which we encourage anyone with opinions to walk down to attend as a group.

Please sign up here: https://docs.google.com/.../1FAIpQLScWVBuZsqkGOj.../viewform

We hope to see you there!

Facebook event here.

Organizational audit logs are logs that contain records of searches performed by the agency's own operators. This is the most detailed log type, including operator names, license plates searched, and case numbers. It can be downloaded directly from the Flock software as a CSV file.

So much for transparency.

We’ve reached out to the mayor, city council and the city manager’s office for their thoughts on the issue, but so far have not heard anything from Mayor Turner, councilmen Nierman, Seegers and Hanson, or anyone from Roscoe Stelford’s office.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FOIA request here.

Michael Turner: mturner@woodstockil.gov, 815-338-4302
Gregg Hanson: ghanson@woodstockil.gov, 815-321-4483
Tom Nierman: tnierman@woodstockil.gov, 815-321-4479
Bob Seegers Jr: bseegers@woodstockil.gov, 815-321-4482
Roscoe Stelford III: citymanager@woodstockil.gov, 815-338-4301

They submitted a FOIA request (that they shared with me) with the PD to get more information and they found out that some months prior they had been put on that jurisdiction’s hotlist for one week for “investigation".

I know this next bit might be hard to believe, but when they called the PD in question for an explanation, they couldn’t provide one.

I’m being intentionally vague because the PD’s investigation of the “investigation" is ongoing. If I get an update on this story, I'll be sure to update you all with the details.

In the meantime, do yourself a favor and search your license plate number on haveibeenflocked.com. If you find anything interesting, please feel free to let us know about it. Stay safe.

The data they collect extends way beyond license plate numbers

When Flock Safety and their proponents call their cameras “license plate readers” it is a calculated oversimplification. Flock Falcon “ALPRs” record your vehicle's:

License plate
Image
Timestamp
Location
Direction of travel
Make
Model
Year
Color
Condition
Bumper stickers
Accessories
Aftermarket wheels

They call this a Vehicle Fingerprint^®.

Flock Condor AI-controlled pan-tilt-zoom cameras are meant to record people. They create a profile of every person that comes within their view. The profile of your person includes your:

Image
Timestamp
Location
Direction of travel
Hair color
Height
Weight
Age
Gender
Race
Clothing
Gait

Condor cameras have an additional neat trick up their sleeves, they can also record your Vehicle Fingerprint^®. So- if you’re in from out of town for a nice little Saturday on the square, their Falcon camera can connect your vehicle’s registration to your Vehicle’s Fingerprint® and when you step out of your car, their Condor camera can connect your vehicle to your person. Now all of that data, and the images they’ve collected is connected to your name. They make a point of claiming that they do not do facial recognition, but that’s only because they don’t need to.

The centralization and wide sharing of data allows bad actors to stalk people through Flock searches

This risk often gets dismissed as a hypothetical, or a “rogue actor”, or a “bad apple”. The problem is that if thousands or tens of thousands of people have access to a month of location data for anyone passing one of their 100,000+ camera network, it’s going to be misused. It’s too much power to trust to this many people. It was never a question of if, it has always been a question of when. News stories of abuse have popped up all over the country, all over the state, and now right here in McHenry County.

Note: the Woodstock Police Department shares all of the data that it collects with all 466 Flock customers in Illinois, so each alleged stalker in our state likely searched our data.

They not only share this data, they also sell this data

Here is the price sheet from a procurement company called Omnia Partners:

https://www.omniapartners.com/suppliers-files/E-J/Flock_Safety/Contract_Documents/R250203/R250203_FlockCU1_Pricing_2025_04_01.pdf

Now that the data (raw images and metadata) has left Flock’s servers, it can be used by a third-party for any purpose, including:

• putting facial recognition on it

• using machine learning to analyze your clothing or bumper stickers (rainbow colors, pro-anything, anti-anything, 2A messaging)

• using machine learning to analyze where you've been (political rally, protest, gun range, church)

• using time and location data to construct a 'pattern of life'

• combining it with other data streams (social media records, phone records, credit card statements, court records)

That aggregation of data can then be re-sold it to any government agency or private company that they want (FBI, NSA, DHS, Palantir, etc). They do this kind of thing in China, where they call it a Social Credit System.

Retrieving historical location data without a warrant is a violation of your privacy and your 4th amendment rights

It may be true that it’s not illegal for a private surveillance company like Flock Safety to monitor, record and store your movements for 30 days (it called the “Third-party doctrine”). It is illegal for law enforcement to do so. If a police officer tracks your movement for month in order to charge you for a crime, that information will certainly be inadmissible in a court of law because it violates your 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. How does purchasing that same information from a private company make it OK?

Proponents like to say that you "have no expectation of privacy in public", but does that extend to the ability to know everywhere you've been in the last month with a simple search?

Their hardware security is atrocious

Their cameras store data on an SD card for 30 days (or more), so you don't have to hack Amazon AWS GovCloud to steal data. All you need is 30 seconds and a stick.

Their cameras are internet-connected, so you don't even need physical access, just a web browser and search engine to connect to misconfigured cameras.

See Benn Jordan’s fantastic video about the vulnerabilities of Flock Safety’s hardware.

Their security controls are a joke

As long as you don't type “ice operations” or “immigration enforcement” or “stalking my ex” as your reason for the search, it will be allowed. Agencies know this and are training their people accordingly. The "bad apples” know this too.

Stolen/leaked/sold Flock credentials are available for sale on the dark web, so you don't have to hack anything.

A buddy in the next precinct over (or across the country) can run a search for you, so you don't even need to buy stolen credentials.

Their “immutable” audit logs can be modified and deleted

They claim their audit logs are immutable (unable to be changed or deleted), and thus provide transparency about the data they collect. This has been proven to be untrue. They can change and hide audit logs from their customers. They can hide setting changes that they’ve made for their customers. They can hide changes of their customer's user lists. They can hide searches made by their own employees. If their logging is not immutable, their actions cannot be transparent.

Edit 7/19/2026: Turns out Woodstock’s Flock Safety audit logs aren’t immutable either.

They are a billionaire-funded multi-billion dollar private surveillance company chasing an IPO

Rapid growth is their primary objective, not anyone's safety.

(Edited 6/28/26 11:40p CST to note the number of data sharing agreements WPD are under and to fix various grammatical errors.)

-

Recall that WPD shares its Flock data (every timestamped location, image and description of your vehicle for the last 30 days) with every Flock customer in Illinois:

https://woodstockil.justfoia.com/Attachments/Download/223b7125-7cf1-4004-aecc-08a46cba669e

Police Chief John Lieb vouched for his gang and we have no reason not to trust him, but can he say the same for every single user in all three hundred and thirty nine four hundred and sixty-six jusrisdictions across the state of Illinois?

The potential for abuse was dismissed by Mike Turner and the city council when they voted to expand our city’s dealings with Flock Safety, so if this kind of shit makes you angry, you should send them your feelings (but be nice about it /s).

We’ve compiled a list of alleged abuses (that we know about) that have happened across our state (so far) and that likely involve our data:

Jalia Cole-Clark, Matteson PD

https://stopflock.org/foias/matteson-internal-investigation.pdf

Officer Jalia Cole-Clark conducted 329 Flock searches from 12/10/2024 to 12/31/2024 of a former partner and that former partner’s partner.

Was subject to an internal adminstrative hearing on Jan 21, 2025 that she did not participate in on advice of her union counsel. Resigned on Jan 22, 2025 (“I’m over it,” she’s quoted as saying).

Jeremy Harrison, Joliet, PD

https://www.shawlocal.com/the-herald-news/2026/05/13/termination-hearing-for-joliet-police-lieutenant-continued-to-another-date-after-4-hours-in-closed-session/

Liutenant Jeremy Harrison: “Lieutentant Harrison accessed the Joliet Police Department’s Automatic License Plate Reader Database, known as ‘Flock,’ for a purpose not associated with law enforcement activities, but for personal purposed to track the location of a female officer. Specifically, Lieutenant Harrison accessed the Flock system on approximately eight occasions on or around July 2025 to search the personal license plate of a Joliet Police Officer … and he conducted approximately 153 searches for (the female officer’s) license plate.” “He used reasons such as ‘wanted’, ‘stolen’ and/or ‘reckless’ or words to similar effect when those selections were not the truthful and/or accurate reason for his searches of (the officer’s) license plate.”

Note: Flock Safety’s robust security controls seemed to have failed here.

Put on paid leave in late July 2025. Recommended for termination by police chief Bill Evans on Dec 22, 2025. Appealed to the Joliet Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and as of May 13, 2026 that process appears to be ongoing.

Tyler C. Bryan, Winnebago County Sheriff/Cherry Valley PD

https://www.wifr.com/2026/05/08/former-winnebago-co-deputy-cherry-valley-officer-accused-stalking/

Illinois State Police investigated a complaint from the Cherry Valley Police Department about one of its part-time officers, Tyler C. Bryan. Offenses took place over multiple years while Bryan was both on and off duty as an officer with the CVPD, and as a deputy with Winnebago County Sheriff’s office. He has since resigned from both departments.

Turned himself in on May 8, after being charged with two counts of stalking (class 4 felony) and two counts of official misconduct (class 3 felony). As of May 8, 2026, ISP’s investigation is ongoing.

William C. Copp, Prairie Grove PD

https://www.shawlocal.com/northwest-herald/2026/06/18/holiday-hills-police-chief-charged-with-official-misconduct-was-also-prairie-grove-cop/

Holiday Hills police chief and Prairie Grove police officer William Copp made a number of unauthorized searches using PG’s Flock license plate reader to track six people he is connected to personally, including three women he had been in romatic relationships with and an ex-boyfriend of one of those women. He used Flock license plate readers to track the ex-boyfriend 140 times between Feb 26, 2024 and Nov 5, 2025.

Put on administrative leave Nov 5, 2025. Fired by PGPD on May 8, 2025. Arrested on a warrant June 18, 2026. Charged with two counts of official misconduct (class 3 felony).

Pull the new contract and cancel the old ones. Bag the cameras.

Contact Woodstock City Council and Mayor Mike Turner.

Holiday Hills police chief and part-time Prairie Grove police officer William Copp, of Crystal Lake, IL has been fired from the Prairie Grove PD and charged with official misconduct, a class 3 felony, for unlawfully using Flock license plate readers and a law enforcement database to contact and track people he knew.

https://www.shawlocal.com/northwest-herald/2026/06/18/holiday-hills-police-chief-charged-with-official-misconduct-was-also-prairie-grove-cop/

Saying “people he knew” kind of undersells the point. He (allegedly) stalked six people. Three were women he had been in romantic relationships with and another was the ex-boyfriend of one of those women, whom he had searched 140 times. He made these searches over a period between Feb. 26, 2024, and Nov. 5, 2025.

We’ve been seeing it happen all over the country. We pleaded with the Mayor and City Council to reject the Flock contract for this very reason (among others).

Woodstock’s data is widely shared and was most likely compromised

A Freedom of Information Act request shows that the City of Woodstock shares data with other Flock customers across Illinois, including Prairie Grove PD, where the abuse was alleged to occur.

https://woodstockil.justfoia.com/Attachments/Download/223b7125-7cf1-4004-aecc-08a46cba669e

This is unacceptable. Chief Lieb vouched for his officers, and I have no reason to doubt his words, but does he also vouch for the integrity of every single person with Flock access in every single one of those 339 466 jurisdictions12 to strictly follow the law for every single search?

Flock does not take data safety seriously and they do not meaningfully control access to prevent abuse. Their audit logs can be updated or deleted. They lie, all the time. They sell our data. A for-profit private surveillance startup with a $7.5B valuation seeking an IPO has only one motive, growth at all costs. Safety was never the goal.

Get Flock Safety OUT of Woodstock, IL.

Contact your city council members.

You may remember back in April, when Jason reported about Flock Safety employees misusing Dunwoody, GA’s live and recorded camera streams:

Why Are Flock Employees Watching Our Children?

He uncovered that employees at the Atlanta, GA-based company were using their camera feeds for their sales pitches.

More alarmingly, he found that a business development manager named Randy Gluck viewed 4 cameras at the Marcus Jewish Community Center on August 23rd, 2025 before settling on “Main Pool Right”:

Later, Flock Vice President of Strategic Relations and Business Development Bob Carter logged into a single camera in the girl's gymnastics room at the JCC on September 30th, 2025:

Jason continued to monitor Dunwoody’s user and audit logs through open records requests. This week he wrote a follow-up:

Caught Watching Our Kids, Then Wiped

In this report, hes proven that Flock’s claims of immutable (permanent and unmodifiable) audit logs is untrue.

In comparing user logs from before his original report on March 26th and after on April 15, 2026, he found that gymnastics enthusiast Bob Carter’s user was removed from Dunwoody’s user list, with no record in the audit log of it having been done. The logs show that a user named Martin Howley deleted 9 users in the system (including one of his own alt accounts), but no record of Bob Carter’s user deletion exists. In addition to Bob Carter, 16 other Flock employees were missing from the second user list, with no audit log records showing their deletion.

He also found a record in the audit log that shows someone changing a configuration setting named “ShowSearchAudit”:

I wonder what that does?

It’s clear that Flock’s immutable audit logs are anything but. It’s employees were caught doing highly questionable searches, then they tried to cover it up by altering their audit logs. No immutability means no transparency or accountability.

Flock Safety is a company that cannot be trusted to keep our data safe and they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Flock has the flu Mayor Turner, and it's coughing all over the place. We must cancel our contracts with Flock Safety.

Contact City Council

Want to get involved? Shoot us a note.

https://www.woodstockilpride.com/pridefest/woodstock-pridefest

It's free, but donations are accepted. Come support Warp Corps- an organization with a mission to improve the lives of Woodstock's young people.

Warp Corps

Think of how far $64,000 would go if directed towards helping our youth rather than chasing them away.

(This will be one of that last street festivals before a slew of Flock Condor AI-controlled PTZ surveillance cameras will chase young people away from one of the last free third spaces in Woodstock.)

Where are we today?

At the February 3rd Woodstock city council meeting, the proposed 3-year contract with Flock Safety for 6 ai-controlled point-tilt-zoom cameras was approved by a 4-3 vote:

Votes for:

• Mayor Michael Turner

• Bob Seegers Jr.

• Tom Nierman

• Gregg Hanson

Votes against:

• Melissa McMahon

• Natalie Ziemba

• Darrin Flynn

This February 4th article in the Northwest Herald by Claire O’Brien covered the meeting well: “Woodstock will install Flock cameras in the Square, despite strong opposition; 1 a.m. vote followed 5-hour discussion.”1

The official city council meeting minutes2 excerpted below gave a pretty accurate account of the evening, emphasis mine:

Thirty-one people shared their opinions and information pertaining to their opposition to the installation of security cameras in the Square. One speaker was supportive of security cameras on the Square; one speaker was neutral to the installation of cameras, offering his expertise in the area of security cameras. The following are some of their comments.

Concerned with Flock’s use of AI technology, concerned with Flock’s privacy of data as they believe there have been data leaks, opined that Flock is more prone to hacking than other companies, opined that Flock has been sloppy with DHS and ICE, would feel less safe with the addition of these cameras, opined theses security cameras would be a violation of the 4th amendment, worried about who owns this data, believed that Flock cameras can zoom into people’s faces and follow them, was OK with normal cameras on the Square, concerned with data being indexed and easily accessible, concerned that Council has already decided how they will vote, would feel racially profiled by security cameras, opined that the cameras won’t be able to stop crime, had incredible distrust in corporations, opined that having Flock cameras everywhere is like having ICE agents watching him, read that the footage is used for training purposes, stated that Flock’s website shared sex, race, etc., concerned that the cameras are tracking people, shared that facial recognition is not allowed in Illinois except for sex offenders, not concerned since a lot of stores already have security cameras in place, said that Woodstock’s crime rate is lower than that of the state of IL and the federal government, would like information about a closed-circuit option, concerned about the tracking of citizens, stated they’d take their business elsewhere if these cameras were installed…

You can and should read the city council minutes, but the fact is none of the yes voters made any attempt to address any of the concerns brought before them. The mayor also dismissed us as the “loudest people in the room.”

So what now?

Mayor turner made the tiebreaking vote for the cameras, but as a concession added to the motion:

1. A 120-day cancellation clause for the term of the contract at the City’s sole discretion, without cause.

2. The non-appropriation clause is to be retained in the final agreement.

3. A review by the City Attorney’s Office of all data security, ownership, and related issues, which could be performed administratively.

4. A clause within the final agreement that prevents the utilization of facial recognition by this technology. This point is moot. Flock’s own marketing materials touts one search for LPR and video data. Your name and vehicle registration are tied to your license plate, your license plate is logged when you enter and exit town, your license plate is tied to your Vehicle Fingerprint™, the profile the Condor cameras builds on you (clothing, height, weight, gender, race, gait analysis, etc3) will be tied to your car’s Vehicle Fingerprint™ when you step out of it, and the Condor cameras will track your movements around the square.4

5. A modification to the final agreement that does not allow Woodstock’s data to be used for AI training. With no way to meaningfully audit the data Flock Safety collects with its cameras, there is no way to verify this.

Point 1 is the important one. We’ll be spreading information and collecting signatures from every farmer’s market and public event we can purchase a booth at or can get invited to. We’re going to contact every small business on and around the square and every seller at the farmer’s market. Signage is being planned. People are being mobilized.

We’re not going to stop our efforts until (at least) the last of those 120 days.

How you can help

In order of impact:

1. Add your name to the petition and share with people you know who may be concerned

2. Contact the mayor and city council directly. Note: bring facts and respect. Being mean or abusive may be cathartic, but does not help our cause.

3. Bring your concerns to a city council meeting (you’ll probably find at least one of us there). A public comment period occurs near the beginning of every bi-weekly meeting

4. If you have any ideas to share or would like to get involved, contact us by hitting the button below or shooting an email to stopflockinwoodstock@proton.me

If we can’t get the mayor and city council to grasp the consequences of bringing this bullshit to our town and reverse course, we’ll do everything in our power to make sure the people remember who is responsible at the next election.

Mayor Michael Turner:
815-338-4302
mturner@woodstockil.gov

Council Member Bob Seegers, Jr:
815-321-4482
bseegers@woodstockil.gov

Council Member Tom Nierman:
815-321-4479
tnierman@woodstockil.gov

Council Member Gregg Hanson:
815-321-4483
ghanson@woodstockil.gov

If you can’t make it, consider signing our online petition:

https://www.change.org/p/we-want-flock-safety-out-of-woodstock-il

https://www.change.org/p/we-want-flock-safety-out-of-woodstock-il

Flock Safety is a private, billionaire-owned surveillance company whose camera systems have raised serious concerns about security, misuse, and civil liberties. These systems have proven as easy to hack and vulnerable to unaccountable abuse by authorities. They are also a violation of our 4th amendment right to unlawful search and seizure. Once this data is captured and aggregated by Flock Safety, it can be misused, sold, abused, weaponized, leaked or stolen, regardless of promises and guarantees made by its executives and its sales representatives.

Flock Safety makes our community less safe, not more.

We are demanding:

1. The city ends all current and future partnerships with Flock Safety. This includes:

   • Decommissioning/removal of all 12 Flock Falcon ALPR cameras currently installed on every main road in or out of town and on the Woodstock square.

   • Cancelling the newly signed contract for the 6 ai-controlled Flock Condor point-tilt-zoom cameras to be installed around Woodstock square. If this is within 120 days of installation the city will incur no cancellation fee. The $64,800 of taxpayer savings from cancelling the contract can instead be re-invested in real community safety programs including housing, mental healthcare, drug treatment and suicide prevention programs.

2. If the city insists on surveilling our safe and welcoming town square, we demand the city find a closed-circuit option from a reputable vendor after proper due diligence and community input. We know these options exist and are viable, as they are already deployed at the Woodstock train station watching over Benton and Main Streets.

Since 2025, at least 23 communities have rejected, cancelled or terminated contracts with Flock Safety, including Oak Park, IL and Evanston, IL. Woodstock, Illinois should join that list and be a example for other municipalities in the region to be a city that truly cares about the safety, security and constitutional rights of their citizens and visitors.

It’ll be good, come have your voice and concerns heard. Support others that speak. Prepare your Statements. You are amazing!

There are 2 AI enabled venders as options. One of them being flock. You can find the Packet here with the contracts & police chiefs letters, starting on page 232.

Remember to be kind. Our City Council members have full time jobs outside of working for the council. We are grateful for their time and consideration. 🙏🏼

After Party/Gathering @ Liquid Blues. Why not? 🍻

Flock Terms and Conditions - Does the city own the data?

Take a glance at the Terms & Conditions for Flock. They are only posted online and can & have changed over time. Very weird.

Has our Legal Team reviewed these terms?

The city “Owns” the data, BUT Flock is contractually allowed to analyze footage, retain derivative outputs, and use images indefinitely to train its proprietary it’s AI systems (Look at §1.9, §4.3). It’s right there!

The agreement also allows Flock to disclose City data to third parties or law enforcement and permits downstream recipients to retain it beyond the City’s own retention limits (§4.4, §5.3)

We don’t fully control / own the data despite the sales pitch.

In 2024/25 CCTV Square Plan

In 2024/2025 the City projected $85k for a CCTV system. This is great, CCTV is much better than Year Subscription, AI Enabled, Cloud-based, data-sharing solutions like the Flock system and others that are being considered.

They didn’t follow through it sounds like because of “Electrical Issues”. Why couldn’t that be figured out? Why not solar panels for the cameras?

We have a quote for the city square for a 7 camera CCTV system for $12k. There are both more affordable solutions! Each camera would wirelessly beam the data to the NVR where footage is safely stored on Woodstock property, staying within the city of Woodstock.

CCTV is better than Flock or other AI Vendors

• No Yearly Subscription

• Long-term cost stability, no price hikes

• Data stays local

  • Within the cities ownership, not in the cloud

  • Vulnerable to hacks/oversharing

• No AI police - Our officers we trust are in control

• Works during internet outages or vendor downtime

• No vendor lock-in or sudden pricing changes

• Rotating footage, deleted after 90 days (or shorter) per IL Law.

Rebuttal to The Police Chief’s Memo to City Manager

This is a misrepresentation, while some did express concerns about the LPR cameras. Most comment’s were regarding the Flock Security Cameras on the square & the related issues there. The meeting extended to 9pm due to the number of public comments. Saying “several” again misrepresents the volume of comments.

Based on both a FOIA as well as past documents. As of Nov 4th, no other vendors had been considered, no quotes received (Link to FOIA), etc. We believe this to be untrue, or the city has withheld FOIA info.

It appears that an $85k option was on the table in FY23/24, but got dismissed. We’re not sure what this large $200k estimate is, we have found no records to back this claim. We have a quote in hand for closer to $12k. It’s possible that the Police Chief is trying to say alternatives are just too expensive for us to consider. But that seems to be untrue.

Oops. Yes yes they have. Great video:

Flock Patent

It is important to note, that while these cameras don’t have “Face Detection”, partially because of IL Law around biometric. They are very capable AI Cameras that track many other things.

Use this script to speak during a public comment period at the meeting. Most likely you’ll have 3 minutes to speak.

We recommend customizing it to fit your concerns. Templates are at the bottom of this page.

Tips for Customizing and Delivering Your Comment

• Say where you’re from and why you care.

• Practice reading it aloud: it fits within 2.5–3 minutes.

• You don’t need to be an expert! Speaking as a community member matters.

Talking Points Ideas

• Number of cameras per capita (people)

• Cost, subscriptions

• We are not a large city, we don’t need to be surveilled like them

• Crime rate vs Investment, does the crime rate justify the cost?

• $ spend per capita

• Who queries the Woodstock Il cameras most?

• Why doesn’t Woodstock IL have a transparency portal turned on for Flock?

• We host events (Woodstock Pride, Mex independence day, Protests and gatherings, …). Would we have to protect our identities, or do we have to host events at safe places like Emricson Park.

• IL Sec state said to review your contract (ICE)

• Ring Door bell data

• Private moments shared

• Local storage and privacy

• Our citizens data can be used in AI Training

• What is the exit clause? They have perpetual clauses even after exit.

• When are you going to stand up for our privacy as new capabilities and features are possible and rolled out? Facial recognition etc?

• What about the new Flock terms where they own the data? (proof)

• What about spending the $9k on an alternate?

• Apartment privacy for those on the square.

• Can we FOIA the camera data / footage.

• Business tactics are a template contract, language that gives Flock perpetual access to footage. Have we really reviewed it?

• “Trust us with your data” yet has proven to not have proper safeguards in place according to the IL Attorney General.

• Flock had a pilot program with ICE (not to mention demos) & Leadership didn’t know.

• NDA with City Personal?

• Why is there no open Town Hall?

• We are paying attention how this vote goes for the next election

Template 1: Policy Fit and Public Safety Effectiveness Angle

I’m a Woodstock resident, and I’m here because I care about evidence-based public safety, not performative security.

This expansion is justified under the Organized Retail Crime grant. Let’s be honest about definitions. Organized retail crime refers to coordinated theft rings, stealing at scale, reselling across networks. That is fundamentally different from isolated shoplifting or nuisance crime.

Is the Woodstock Square truly experiencing organized retail crime?
If so, where is the data?

We have submitted a FOIA to confirm eligibility, because right now this looks like a poor policy fit.

Even if crime exists, cameras alone do not solve organized crime. These grants explicitly allow training, investigations, overtime, and tools. Those investments actually build local capacity. Instead, we are buying a system that emphasizes post-hoc identification, not prevention, not deterrence, and not staffing.

Crime rates should justify investment levels. So should population. How many cameras per capita does Woodstock now operate? How does that compare to similarly sized towns? And effectiveness matters. Has Council been shown evidence that Flock materially reduced organized retail crime in towns like ours, not major metros? Security theater feels safe. Effective policy is harder.

If this vote passes without answering these questions, residents will remember that the city chose optics over rigor, subscriptions over sustainability, and surveillance over strategy.

Public safety should be proportional, targeted, and accountable. This proposal is none of those yet.

I yield the remainder of my time to [Name]

Template 2: Governance, Process, and Democratic Legitimacy Angle

I’m a Woodstock resident, and I’m speaking tonight because how this decision is being made matters as much as the decision itself.

This is a major surveillance expansion with long-term financial and civil implications. Yet there has been no open town hall, no structured public Q&A, and no independent review presented to residents.

Some council members were invited to vendor briefings. Some meetings involved NDAs we are told. Residents were not in the room. That creates an imbalance. Vendors get access. Residents get a vote agenda.

Good governance requires more than legal compliance. It requires legitimacy. That means open deliberation, competing options presented side-by-side, and time for public scrutiny before contracts are effectively locked in.

This contract contains complex provisions around data retention, access, exit terms, and downstream use. These are not trivial. They deserve public explanation, not just staff reassurance. If this system is truly beneficial, it should withstand open discussion. If it cannot, that itself is information.

Tonight’s vote may be technically valid. But legitimacy comes from process, not procedure.

I urge Council to pause, hold a public forum, and allow residents to evaluate alternatives before committing Woodstock to another multi-year surveillance obligation.

I yield the remainder of my time to [Name]

Template 3: Small-Town Scale and Proportionality Angle

I’m a Woodstock resident, and I want to talk about scale.

Woodstock is not Chicago. We are not Naperville. We are a small town with a walkable square, a known community, and regular civic life. Yet our surveillance posture increasingly resembles that of much larger cities.

How many cameras per capita do we now operate?
How does that compare to peer towns in Illinois?

These systems normalize constant monitoring in places where people live, work, and gather casually. That may be appropriate in high-density, high-crime environments. It is far less obvious here.

Once installed, cameras do not scale down. They only expand. More features. More analytics. More integration. This matters because proportionality is a public-safety principle. Tools should match the risk environment, not exceed it by default. Woodstock’s strength has always been trust, visibility, and community presence, not remote surveillance.

If we continue layering metropolitan security infrastructure onto a small-town context, we should be honest about what we are trading away.

I yield the remainder of my time to [Name]

Template 4: Fiscal Responsibility and Grant Misuse Angle

I’m a Woodstock resident, and I’m speaking because I care about how this city spends long-term taxpayer dollars, not just how we use short-term grants.

Tonight’s discussion is framed around a grant. But grants don’t eliminate costs, they shift timing. This FY26 Organized Retail Crime grant lasts one year only. After that, the city is locked into recurring obligations.

Right now, Woodstock already spends $22,500 per year on Flock subscriptions. With the proposed Square cameras, that jumps to roughly $54,000 per year going forward. Over three years, total Flock costs reach about $152,000 across contracts.

$21,500/year over 3 years is $64,500. The $9,000 grant, only offsets just over 13% of the first 3 yrs.

This grant is not Flock-specific. It explicitly allows cameras, CCTV systems, maintenance, training, investigative overtime, and equipment. A local CCTV or NVR system could be installed for roughly $12,000 one-time. With the same grant, that becomes about $3,000 total, with no subscription.

That is a $53,000 savings over three years, for comparable visibility on the Square.

Why is the city choosing the highest recurring-cost option when the grant clearly favors one-time investments?

Has Council been shown a worst-case pricing scenario if per-camera fees rise to $4,000 or more? Prices have already climbed from about $2,000 to over $3,000 per camera. At what price point does Woodstock exit? And where, exactly, will the additional $30,000 per year come from once the grant expires?

Fiscal responsibility means planning beyond year one. Right now, this plan does not.

I yield the remainder of my time to [Name]

Thank you for your time.

Hope to see you there!

Here is the Grant form the Il Attorney General - FY26 Organized Retail Crime Grant Program.

Is the grant only good for Flock? Nope.

Nope! There are many things the grant is good for!

For example: Cameras, GPS, Mobile Forensic Tools, Maintenance, Investigation Overtime Pay, Training. FY26 Allowable / Non-Allowable Expenses!

Why not use the grant for a safer/local CCTV option, or Training?

How long is the Grant good for? 1yr only

So ignoring little offset on the first year offset… how does the city plan to fund $21,500/yr?

We already spend $22,500/yr. We’ll be overall looking at $54,000/yr for all the cameras around Woodstock. $22,500 → $54,000/yr

With the additional contract the total cost across 3yrs is $152,000 across all Flock contracts .Where will the raise these funds?

Explore the data [Google Sheets]

Read the Grant Terms

—-

Just the Square cameras ($21,500 * 3yrs - $9,000) = Still $55,800 over 3 years even with the grant. The grant only offset a little over 13%.

Organized Retail Crime?

Yes, famously the the Woodstock Square is riddled with Organized Crime. (sarcasm)

It’s hard to lock in the definition of Organized Crime in IL. But generally:

Organized retail crime typically refers to large-scale retail theft and fraud by organized groups that steal merchandise to resell through various channels for profit, distinguishing it from isolated or individual shoplifting.

If so, it’s questionable if Woodstock Square truly is eligible.

We have a FOIA out to confirm we are, and if so, how?

Alternate Options

Why not CCTV or DVR/NVR with a one time cost of ~$12,000?

($12,000 - $9,000) = $3,000 one time cost

Nearly 100% covered by grant. And no recurring yearly subscription.
Over 3yrs we’re talking about about ($56,400 - $3,000) = +$53,400 saved in 3 yrs!

This begs deeper questions

• What does a flock subscription look like as prices increase fro ~$3,500/camera?

  • Prices have gone up from ~2k a couple years ago to ~3 or 3.5k/camera. This will inevitably continue.

• The grant requires Q by Q reporting to expense against. Who is responsible & who guarantees we don’t miss?

• What happens if the per-camera price rises to $4,000+?

• At what price point would the city reconsider or exit the program?

• Has Council been shown the worst-case pricing scenario?

• Why choose the highest recurring-cost option when the grant favors one-time costs?

What is next? What can you do?

• Make your concerns heard during public comments Feb 3rd @7pm Woodstock City Hall.

• Email our Council Members and Police Chief & Mayor

• And Learn more: Learn More about Flock

• Share this page with friends & on Facebook!

To our understanding all have had to sign an NDA with Flock Safety. That’s not normal!

Below is a copy of the Meeting Invite that went out.

FOIA of Flock Meetings with Woodstock [Download PDF]

Our Police Chief John Lieb seems more interested in convincing Council Members and less on bring forward the questions raised by citizens to Flock.

Private Access, Public Money

This was a closed, vendor-run session held in response to negative press. Flock controlled the framing, the discussion, and reportedly what attendees could disclose afterward.

Elected officials should not be receiving material information about a pending budget decision under an NDA from the company that benefits from that decision.

“Headlines vs. Facts” Is Not Neutral Meeting

Labeling criticism as “misinformation” before engaging it shifts the burden away from the vendor. Disagreement becomes something to correct rather than something to evaluate and consider.

If reporting is wrong, the fix is public documentation and independent review. Private reassurance does not correct the record

What Was Not Offered

There is no promise of independent audits, local accuracy data, clear data-retention limits, FOIA analysis, or constraints on future expansion.

Surveillance systems expand quietly. A few cameras at a time. Each addition framed as minor and reasonable. Private briefings and NDAs reduce friction at exactly the moment scrutiny should increase.

Public money should not hinge on private briefings or confidential assurances. If Woodstock is seriously considering additional Flock cameras, we should be asking for independent 3rd party audits.

What is next? What can you do?

• Make your concerns heard during public comments Feb 3rd @7pm Woodstock City Hall.

• Email our Council Members and Police Chief & Mayor

• And Learn more: Learn More about Flock

• Share this page with friends & on Facebook!

How to Help

Give a ring or email our council members. They are awesome, and open to hearing from us.

Reach out to us if you’d like to get involved: woodstockilcameras [at] gmail.com

FOIA Updates

The city has returned some of our FOIA requests, We’ll be posted more about those soon! Subscribe so you don’t miss out.

Short version:

• There appears to be no records of correspondence with other safer alternatvie vendors.

• Flock contract can be found in the City Council Packet, Page 90
  

  

We haven’t heard how the city plans to raise ~21k/yr (excluding the one time $9k grant). That ~54k in 3 yrs of unplanned budget.

(More on grant details & costs in a post soon. Subscribe so you don’t miss out.)

Want to get more involved? Questions?

Email us at woodstockilcameras [at] gmail.com