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

We have received word that the Square Flock Vote has been pushed back to February! Likely Feb 18th. Subscribe to know for

There are many other important topics (listed at bottom of page) being discussed this Dec 16th meeting (Meeting Agenda) so totally worth still attending, & we can bring up Flock concerns still in public comment. [Note: agenda not posted at the time of writing, should be by Mon]

If anything changes for the agenda and as we learn more, we’ll post here.

Is this a win?

Is this a win? Yes! We’re making noise and the city has to do their homework.

We like to assume good-faith, but there is a chance they are hoping our energy will fade [it won’t]! The $9k grant expires in June, but the grant can be used for so many other things.

Thank you to everyone that has emailed and reached out to our council members and to our police chief & mayor! You all are genuinely AWSOME. 🎉 Keep following up and emailing.

Being informed, sharing this site, sending emails, phone calls, and just talking about this…. YOU’RE making a a difference and helping encourage Woodstock to choose safer and better options, there are many reasons why this matters.

Woodstock FOIA

In other fun news, We have 5 FOIA requests open with to the City of Woodstock to better understand our relationship with Flock and the Camera Plan for the square.

1. Woodstock Square Contract / Proposal from Flock

2. The terms, privacy and data sharing terms, data retention & more

3. List of other vendors considered (quotes, brochures, etc)

4. List of meetings & communications with Woodstock staff & Flock

5. Budget breakdown of 03-00-5-543 - Leases and Professional Services

   1. We’ve noted that this FY budget item at increased form ~10k/yr → ~130k/yr

   2. This is the line item where our current Flock camera subscription lands, but it’s intermingled with other subscriptions.

We have one FOIA ask to Evanston, IL for the cease-and-desist letter with Flock to understand the struggles of removing the cameras. Hopefully we can avoid similar here.

If you have other ideas. You can email us or submit your own Woodstock FOIA and share them with us at woodstockilcameras @ gmail . com if you would like.

Dec 16, 2025 Council Meeting possible topics

• Tree Ordinance & Art Fair in the Square

• Storage Tax & Storage Containers @ Niko’s Red Mill Tavern

• Donation Policy & Rise Grant

• Change Order #1 – 2025 Enhanced Streets Improvement Program

• Die Cast Site TIF Inducement & Exclusive Negotiating (Murphy Development Group)

• Quarterly Reports – 2nd Quarter

Want to get more involved?

Email us at woodstockilcameras @ gmail . com

Email: mturner@woodstockil.gov
Phone Number: 815-338-4302

Mayor Turner - SHORT VERSION

Subject: Legal and Liability Risks Associated with Flock Systems

Mayor Turner,

I am raising a serious concern regarding the expansion of Flock Safety in Woodstock. The Illinois Secretary of State’s audit found Flock violated Illinois law by allowing federal and out-of-state access to ALPR data (Audit Findings).

As a result, Evanston and Oak Park terminated their Flock programs due to compliance and liability risks (Evanston Announcement, Oak Park Legal Statement). These actions were taken to prevent municipal exposure under Illinois privacy and biometric statutes.

Furthermore, the Organized Retail Crime Grant under consideration is vendor-neutral and may be used for safer, compliant alternatives (IL Attorney General ORC Program). Or most currently more affordable options that support local, highend security companies.

Given these findings, I strongly urge a formal legal review before proceeding.

Sincerely,

Mayor Turner - LONG VERSION

Subject: Significant Legal and Privacy Risks Associated with Flock Safety Systems

Mayor Turner,

I am writing as a concerned resident to raise serious legal and privacy issues regarding the expansion of Flock Safety systems in Woodstock. This technology has now been formally documented by the Illinois Secretary of State’s 2025 audit as violating state law by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other out-of-state agencies improper access to Illinois ALPR data.
Audit Source: https://www.ilsos.gov/news/2025/august-25-2025-giannoulias-audit-finds-license-plate-reader-company-in-violation-of-state-law.html

Following these findings, Illinois municipalities took immediate action:

• Evanston deactivated all Flock cameras and issued a termination notice due to unlawful data access
  https://www.cityofevanston.org/Home/Components/News/News/6676/249

• Oak Park ended its Flock contract after determining the vendor posed unacceptable legal and privacy risks
  https://derekeder.com/blog/why-i-voted-to-cancel-flock

These decisions were made to protect residents’ privacy rights and to avoid municipal liability under Illinois law, which provides some of the strongest protections in the nation. Expanding a system with known compliance issues exposes Woodstock to potential challenges involving the Illinois Constitution, biometric privacy statutes, and Fourth Amendment search concerns.

It is also important to note that the Illinois Attorney General’s Organized Retail Crime Grant does not require adopting Flock. The grant is vendor-neutral and permits funding for investigations, patrols, training, and non-subscription camera systems that do not carry these legal risks:
https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/Safer-Communities/organized-retail-crime/index

I fully support effective public safety tools, but only those that are legally compliant, privacy-respecting, and do not expose the City to foreseeable liability. Based on the documented issues, I respectfully urge a pause and formal legal review before any expansion of Flock is approved.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Email: policechief@woodstockil.gov
Phone Number: 815-338-2131

POLICE CHIEF - SHORT VERSION

Subject:Significant Legal Risk in Using Flock

Chief Lieb,

I respectfully request that the Police Department reevaluate the expansion of Flock Safety in light of significant legal findings in Illinois. The Illinois Secretary of State’s 2025 audit determined that Flock unlawfully allowed federal agencies, including CBP, to access Illinois ALPR data in violation of state law (Audit Findings).

Following this, multiple municipalities, including Evanston and Oak Park, terminated their Flock contracts due to demonstrated privacy violations and unacceptable compliance risks (Evanston Termination, Oak Park Legal Rationale).

These decisions reflect statutory risk, not politics. Additionally, Flock’s contracts provide the vendor with a perpetual license to aggregated data, raising long-term liability concerns.

Given these issues, I urge Woodstock to pause expansion until a compliance review is completed.

Thank you for your time and your service.

POLICE CHIEF - LONG VERSION

Subject: Legal and Compliance Concerns Regarding Continued Use of Flock Safety Systems

Chief Lieb,

I am writing to raise several serious legal concerns regarding the continued or expanded use of Flock Safety technology in Woodstock. I understand and respect your commitment to enhancing public safety; however, recent developments in Illinois law and documented vendor conduct pose substantial compliance and liability risks for the City and the Police Department.

As you are aware, Illinois maintains some of the strongest privacy and biometric protections in the country, including statutory limits on the sharing of location-based data. In August 2025, the Illinois Secretary of State released an audit finding that Flock Safety allowed access to Illinois residents’ ALPR data by federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in direct violation of Illinois law (Illinois Secretary of State Audit Findings).

Following these findings, multiple Illinois municipalities terminated their relationships with Flock to avoid legal exposure:

• Evanston, IL issued a public statement deactivating all Flock systems and serving the company with termination notice, citing explicit concerns regarding unlawful data access and vendor noncompliance (City of Evanston Announcement).

• Oak Park, IL, after reviewing identical audit findings, voted to discontinue Flock and remove its cameras. A Trustee later published a detailed legal explanation outlining why Flock posed unacceptable risks to the Village and its police department (Legal Analysis by Trustee Derek Eder).

It is important to note that these actions were not political, they were taken to protect municipalities from statutory violations, civil-liberties challenges, and third-party misuse of sensitive data.

Finally, Flock’s own contracts explicitly grant the company a perpetual, worldwide license to reuse aggregated data, including footage, even after a contract ends, under Section 4.4 of multiple executed agreements available in public records. This raises profound questions about long-term data control, discoverability, and liability.

Chief, I fully respect your expertise and commitment to public safety. My concern is that maintaining or expanding Flock use without a full legal review exposes the City and the Department to avoidable risk, particularly given the clear precedents now established in Illinois.

I respectfully request that Woodstock pause further expansion and initiate a formal compliance assessment before proceeding.

Thank you for your time and your service.

If you don’t want Flock surveillance in our community, now is the time to speak up.

Please email or call your council members and let them know you oppose the Flock expansion and support safer, more privacy-friendly options. Even a quick message makes a big difference.

If you don’t know where to start, we’ve provided ready-to-send templates you can use as is or customize. We encourage everyone to send one template email and one personal email (totally can be short and simple) to help flood their offices and make our message clear.

Your voice matters. Your privacy matters. Our community matters.

Council contact list is below, take one minute today to reach out.

Members Who Voted Against Flock

Darrin Flynn: dflynn@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4485
Melissa McMahon: mmcmahon@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4481
Natalie Ziemba: nziemba@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4484

Subject: Thank you for standing up for privacy, fiscal responsibility, and community trust

Hi [Council Member Name],

Thank you for your vote against expanding Flock cameras! Your stand for transparency, privacy, and fiscal responsibility matters deeply to many of us in the community.As you continue reviewing this issue, here are additional resources and context you may find helpful:

Illinois & Regional Examples

• City of Evanston (2025): Deactivated all Flock-linked automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras after a state audit revealed Flock violated Illinois law by allowing unauthorized federal access. City of Evanston+2ABC7 Chicago+2

• Village of Oak Park (2025): Voted to cancel its Flock contract and shut down its ALPR system entirely, citing privacy risks, distrust of Flock data-sharing practices, and insufficient benefit relative to cost. Wednesday Journal+1

The $9,000 grant slated for Woodstock Square comes from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office’s Organized Retail Crime (ORC) Grant Program, not from Flock. Illinois Attorney General+2Illinois Attorney General+2

That grant can legally be spent on a range of anti-theft efforts, including investigations, patrols, training, or updating existing camera infrastructure.( Illinois Attorney General+1 )This means the city could deploy non-vendor–locked, one-time-cost options instead of committing to an expensive, long-term, surveillance-heavy contract.

If you’re open to it, I’m happy to help compile a list of alternative systems and costs, to show what’s possible without compromising privacy or budget.

Thank you again for your leadership and willingness to stand up for Woodstock’s values.

Warmly,

Members Who Voted For Flock

Tom Nierman: tnierman@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4479
Bob Seegers, Jr: bseegers@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4482
Gregg Hanson: ghanson@woodstockil.gov. | 815-321-4483

Subject: Please Reconsider Flock - Our Community Does Not Want This Technology

Hi [Council Member Name],

I’m writing because I know your support for Flock comes from a genuine desire to make Woodstock safer. But I want to be very clear: our community does not want Flock. The public feedback, meeting comments, and conversations around town reflect deep discomfort with this technology.

Illinois law gives strong protections for privacy and biometric data, protections recently tested by real events. A 2025 audit by the office of Illinois Secretary of State Illinois Secretary of State+2Business and Human Rights Centre+2 found that Flock Safety allowed access by federal agencies (including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP) to Illinois license-plate camera data in violation of state law. Illinois Secretary of State+1

Because of that breach and the broader risk it exposed, nearby communities like Evanston, IL and Oak Park, IL terminated their Flock contracts in 2025 and deactivated their ALPR cameras. cityofevanston.org+2Wednesday Journal+2

So the critical question becomes:
“Do we want to risk violating Illinois privacy law when safer, fully compliant alternatives exist?”

We all want Woodstock to be safe, but it’s not just about safety.
How we create that safety matters, too. Mass surveillance doesn’t always make a community feel safer; for many, it undermines trust and civil liberties. Other Illinois communities made that judgment and chose to end Flock participation.

There are more targeted, cost-effective, and privacy-conscious options available, systems that don’t lock us into indefinite subscription contracts or expose us to outsized legal and civil-liberties risk. Because the funding being considered (e.g., grant from the state) is not vendor-specific, we are free to choose those alternatives instead of Flock.

I’m asking you to reconsider your vote so Woodstock can adopt a public-safety approach that truly respects the privacy and values of all residents.

Thank you for listening and for your service to our community.

Woodstock is considering bring additional and concerning AI surveillance cameras, this time onto the Square. Specifically Flock Cameras, a fairly new company with a documented history of privacy issues and data-handling concerns.

This is an unscheduled budget request for $21,800/yr for 3yrs. Is that responsible?

This space is for the people who want to stay informed, looking for resources, and how to express your concern, and propose alternatives to city council. We’re a community that pays attention and cares about our town and fellow neighbor’s safety.

We care about Woodstock, safety, and how technology shapes our public spaces.

To be clear:
We’re not against cameras.
We’re concerned about this vendor: Flock.

How to get Involved

• Subscribe to our emails (we’ll be sharing more soon)

• Send questions and concerns to City Council Members

  • To explore safer, privacy-respecting alternatives

  • To Look for more cost effective solutions

  • Thanking the ones who voted against Flock

  • Expressing concern about the members who blindly trust marketing material from Flock

• Spread the word to others!

• Showing up for City Council Meeting - Dec 16th Tues @ 7pm

What is Flock?

There are many great resources. Here is a video that is a great overview?

Here are more videos if you want to dive deep:

• ▶️ Breaking The Creepy AI in Police Cameras

• ▶️ We Hacked Flock Safety Cameras in under 30 Seconds.

• ▶️ Flock: “you can’t get a breath of air without us knowing”

• ▶️ 2 Days until Nationwide Facial Recognition! Surveillance with Ring & Flock

More articles & Resources:

• jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open

• Washington University Research Paper: Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement

• DeFlock.me

• derekeder.com/blog/why-i-voted-to-cancel

• Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out

A few examples of Cities with Flock Related Lawsuits & Legal Issues

• Norfolk, VA Camera Surveillance - Institute for Justice

• Evanston, IL Cease & Cease-and-Desist Flock re-installing cameras w/o Permission

• Stanwood, WA - Public Records Lawsuit

• Braselton, Georgia - Police Chief mis-use stalk and harass private citizens

• Oakland County, MI

• Knoxville, TN

• Search “Flock lawsuits” for more..

Questions

• Doesn’t Woodstock already have Flock cameras around the perimeter of every street enter / exiting Woodstock?

  • Surprise! Yep… and we should probably talk about those next.. let’s start by not adding more Flock that will monitor our daily movements within our city.

• Are there alternatives?

  • Absolutely! CCTV or NVR/DVR with a one time cost of only $12,000

  • Data secure & within our cities ownership, protecting control of it’s citizens privacy.

• I heard there’s a grant?

  • It’s true! $9,000 for one year FY26 Organized Retail Crime Grant Program

  • But that’s only 1yr, where do we plan to fund an additional $21,800/yr? City should be smart with money.

  • The grant is also good for other great things like training.