Flock Follow-up Questions 1-5
Following the now infamous June 15th meeting, I sent follow-up questions to Chief Gillis, as I was invited to do. I have decided to split up the questions and answers into 3 blog posts because of the length of each. It makes it easier for you to come back and not have to find where you stopped.
Some of the questions I asked were asked to me by residents, and some were questions I had. On each blog post, I will include: the following documents, the public records law, and the exemptions so it is easier to find.
The layout below has my question in blue, the answer in red, and my response in black.
Many of the answers reference M.G.L. Ch. 4 § 7 sub. 26 (F) (N), so I've included the law and those exemptions below:
"Public records'' shall mean all books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded tapes, financial statements, statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, or any person, corporation, association, partnership or other legal entity which receives or expends public funds for the payment or administration of pensions for any current or former employees of the commonwealth or any political subdivision as defined in section 1 of chapter 32, unless such materials or data fall within the following exemptions in that they are:"
and Exemptions F and N are used as a justification to not answer questions:
f) investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest;
(n) records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security
Question & Answer 1
Why are at least 3 flock cameras (Suffield St., Bridge St., and Main St.) are facing oncoming
traffic?
a. How are those cameras capturing only the back of a vehicle when they are positioned towards oncoming traffic?
b. Why are these cameras positioned towards oncoming traffic? Was the placement and/or position selected by APD or any other representative of Agawam?
This question will not be answered in accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 4 § 7 sub. 26 (F) (N).
Exemption (F): Disclosure of locations would expose investigative strategy and allow
those who know of locations to evade law enforcement. Camera locations and the fields
they view have been selected to best collect information that is out of the public view for
official investigations and disclosure of that information would prejudice the possibility of
prosecution.
Exemption (N): Disclosure of camera locations and the fields they view would expose
surveillance coverage information that could be exploited. A malicious actor could damage
cameras or evade detection by knowing camera locations, coverage ranges, and blind spots.
In this answer the Chief cites the law that defines what is considered a public record. It does allow for exemptions; however, I did not put in a public records request, and if I had, the exemptions were still incorrect.
Exemption F states "investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view..." and in the Chief's justification he attempts to pull from that part: "Camera locations and the fields they view have been selected to best collect information that is out of the public view for official investigations..." However, we have all have eyes and can physically see the cameras. I created a video that amassed over 70,000 views from people around the country that showed exactly where those three cameras were located.
Deflock.org also has the locations of every Flock camera in the country. These cameras are not out of view for the public, making Exemption F null.
Exemption N falls short since I did not ask about blueprints, plans, or drawings. I asked why they were facing oncoming traffic. We were told repeatedly by the mayor, by Flock, and by the police that these cameras were taking pictures of the back of the cars. By that being stated publicly and repeatedly, it shows that there talking about the way they are facing does not "jeopardize public safety or cyber security," therefore, my question as to why these cameras are facing oncoming traffic can be answered.
Question & Answer 2
The Main St. camera is on private property. Please provide clarifications on the following:
a. Does that property owner have access to the Flock system?
b. Is there a contract with the property owner and either the city or Flock?
c. Please provide paperwork in regard to the relationship.
This question will not be answered in its totality in accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 4 § 7 sub.
26 (F) (N).
Exemption (F): Disclosure of locations would expose investigative strategy and allow
those who know of locations to evade law enforcement. Camera locations and the fields
they view have been selected to best collect information that is out of the public view for
official investigations and disclosure of that information would prejudice the possibility of
prosecution.
Exemption (N): Disclosure of camera locations and the fields they view would expose
surveillance coverage information that could be exploited. A malicious actor could damage
cameras or evade detection by knowing camera locations, coverage ranges, and blind spots.
A. If in-fact FLOCK cameras operated by the Agawam Police Department are located on
private property, there is no access granted by the Agawam Police Department to the
private property owner to access the information contained within the system that is
controlled by the Agawam Police Department.
Again, this camera is visible to the public and has been documented in my video and on Deflock.org, which excludes Exemption F's use. Exemption N does not apply because I am asking about the relationship between the Private Property owner (Six Flags) and Agawam and or Flock and whether or not they are able to have access to the data collected from that camera. These questions are fair because there is already one company that has access to data that is being taken from us by these cameras without our consent, so it is logical to wonder if another private company whose housing one of these cameras has access to that camera and the network. As a city councilor, I am granted the role of oversight. Asking about a relationship involving Flock, Agawam, and Six Flags is within my purview because I was invited to ask questions.
Question & Answer 3
In the contract provided on 4/30/2026, under "Your Flock Hardware and Other Flock Products" section "Video, Images, and Audio Signals and Data" the contract states "When you access the Flock Services, you will have access to Images, video, and/or audio recordings from your device, depending on the product."
a. Were only Falcon cameras leased, or were other products also leased?
b. Do the Falcon cameras have the capability to provide live feed?
A. To our knowledge only Falcon cameras were leased.
B. To our knowledge, there is no live-feed capability.
I appreciate the direct answer here; however, "to our knowledge" is something I want to flag. It leaves open the possibility that other cameras were leased and there is live-feed, but they don't know about it. Add those answers to the last line of the contract that states Flock can change the contract "without further notice," and this has me asking more questions.
Question & Answer 4
In the contract provided on 4/30/2026, under "Your Flock Hardware and Other Flock Products"in the section titled "Saved and Shared Content" the contract states, "You may save and choose to share certain content like video/audio clips images, captions and comments for other people to access using the Flock Services."
a. To date, has Agawam shared any data with other people or agencies/organizations to access: where data refers to anything listed in Q4 above, or any other form of data related to, or generated by. Flock? If yes;
i. Provide the names of the people or agencies/organizations the data is shared with, and
ii. Provide a detailed description of the type and scope for data being shared with them (i.e., what they have access to, and what they can see).
This question will not be answered in accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 4 § 7 sub. 26 (F). Exemption (F): Disclosure of agencies and or organizations with whom we have shared
our data could alert suspects to the direction or scope of an investigation, influence witness
testimony, reveal leads or strategies still being pursued, or compromise the fairness of a
pending prosecution. The rationale supporting not disclosing agencies or organizations
with whom we have shared FLOCK data would likewise apply to our refusal to provide
detailed descriptions of the type and scope of data that was shared with those agencies or
organizations. As stated during our presentation before the City Council, only law
enforcement agencies who have FLOCK accounts have access to our system.
The Chief again cites a law about public records, but this was not a public records request, it was an elected City Councilor asking oversight questions she was invited to ask. Even if it was a public records request, Exemption N would not apply because there are departments in our area that have transparency portals. In those portals they list Agawam as one of the towns they share data with, which disqualifies Exemption N. Agawam residents are being documented by a private company without being asked. Separately, when asked who has access to that data, the Chief cited an exemption that doesn't apply here: the transparency portals I mentioned above disqualify it. Residents deserve an answer to straightforward questions: who is seeing our data, and what can they see?
Question & Answer 5
This contract was signed on September 22,2025. The policy provided by APD wasn't issued until April 29,2026 and took effect until May 15,2026 (a span of 7 months),
a. What, if any. Flock activity was taking place between 9/22/2025 and 5/15/2026?
b. During that time period:
I. Did Agawam/APD have access to Flock data?
ii. Did Flock, or any representative thereof, have access to any data collected by APD?
iii. Did any other individual or entity have access to any data collected by APD?
c. Were Flock cameras active and collecting data in Agawam at any time prior to 5/15/2026? If yes;
i. Were any searches conducted between 9/22/2025 and 5/15/2026?
ii. Were any hotlists created?
iii. Is there any record of how the system was used during that period?
A. During this time, Lt. McGovern was working with FLOCK to determine where the
cameras would be placed throughout our community to best accomplish our goals. The
first camera was installed on January 23rd, 2026, and the first search was performed on
February 27th, 2026.
B.l. Yes. On or about February 18th, 2026 we had access to FLOCK data.
B.2. This was covered by FLOCK representatives during our June 15th, 2026 presentation
to the City Council, during which they explained the scope of their access to our data.
B.3. On or about March 30th, 2026 we granted permission to Law Enforcement agencies
within a 50 mile radius that are also FLOCK users to access our cameras.
C. Yes
C.l. Yes. 12 searches were conducted during that time period.
C.2. No hotlists were created that we are aware of.
C.3. Yes.
I appreciate the answers being straightforward; however, in the June 15th meeting, the Chief told us that the first camera was installed in March. I thought the meeting on the 15th was not being taken seriously by how unprepared the presentation was, and this answer just confirms, unfortunately for our community, I was correct. It is written that during the meeting the Flock representatives said they explained the scope of their access. What they said was if a subpoena came in, they would give it to the town and let the town decide what to do. It was interesting response because that is not what the contract says at all.
The answer to B3 tells us other states have our data, and contradicts the answer in question four. Additionally, answering B3 further excludes the previous exemptions mentioned in other questions. The phrase in C2 "that we are aware of" leaves the door open for hotlists that could have been created that they do not know about, which makes me question how well the police department is monitoring this system.
That is it for Part 1 of this series. Make sure to read Part 2 when you are ready.
Comments