By Amber Angove—For the North Star Reporter
North Attleborough has paused the use of its automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras after the Town Council voted unanimously Monday to request the technology be shut off while officials develop local rules governing its use.
The 8-0 vote came at the Sept. 28 meeting following a public hearing where residents raised concerns about privacy, data sharing and the accuracy of Flock cameras. Others defended the technology as a valuable tool for law enforcement.
By the following day, the council’s requested pause was in effect.
In a Sept. 29 statement, Borg announced that he had directed the Police Department to stop use of the cameras immediately, including all data collection and reciprocal sharing with other agencies.
“The pause is not the end of this conversation. It is the beginning,” Borg wrote.
The next phase will move to the Bylaw Subcommittee, where officials plan to examine standards surrounding data retention, access, sharing, oversight and accountability. Borg said that work will include the Police Department, Town Attorney and an independent auditor.
The town also intends to look beyond its own policy. Once North Attleborough develops its framework, Borg said officials plan to make it available to other municipalities and work with the town’s legislative delegation to advocate for statewide standards governing the technology.
“Public safety and privacy are not competing priorities,” Borg wrote. “Through the Bylaw
Subcommittee, we will examine data retention, access, sharing, oversight and accountability, and we will develop clear standards that reflect what this community needs and expects.”
For now, North Attleborough’s cameras will remain paused while the Bylaw Subcommittee considers what safeguards would need to be in place for the technology to be used locally.”
Resident responses
Francisco Palmarin, a member of the School Committee, supported giving police the tools to protect the community while calling for greater transparency surrounding the system.
“Good local intentions cannot reduce risk alone,” Palmarin said. “Before North Attleborough expands the system…we should be able to explain where our residents’ info goes.”
Similar concerns were raised by Blake Buchanan, who focused on the scale of the Flock camera network.
“The real power of Flock is not one camera, but the power of multiple cameras,” Buchanan said, describing the system’s ability to piece together a vehicle’s movements across different locations.
Buchanan advocated for several safeguards, including a warrant requirement, restrictions on nationwide sharing and independent audits.
“A Flock alert alone should never be enough,” he said, adding that police should have documented probable cause before investigation or arrest of an individual.
Jonathan Green, who works in cybersecurity and technology, questioned not only Flock’s current capabilities, but how those could change.
“I’m not only thinking about what the technology can do today, but what it can do tomorrow,” Green said. “What happens when Flock gets new capabilities…does Flock simply deploy the upgrade?”
Others focused on the consequences when the technology gets something wrong.
Resident Mike MacLean cited cases in which vehicles have allegedly been misidentified, asking, “How many errors are we willing to tolerate…what if someone is detained wrongfully…or a stop goes out of control?”
MacLean also raised the possibility of financial liability for the town if an incorrect alert resulted in a wrongful stop or detention.
David Brackman, a practicing attorney and lifelong North Attleborough resident, urged councilors to consider the broader implications of adopting the technology and “decide what community you want to shape as elected officials.”
Melissa White was more direct in questioning the company itself, telling the council, “Flock has no incentive to protect our data.”
The hearing also included residents who supported continued use of the cameras and software.
Planning Board Chairman Jason Gittle argued the system gives police another tool to solve crimes and pushed back on some of the privacy concerns raised during the hearing.
“There is no occupant information…they are capturing license plates,” Gittle said.
While acknowledging that any technology can be misused, he asked, “Why would we take this tech away from our public servants?”
Melissa Harney, who works at the NAPD, said “I think we need to think about victims. I have faith in the chief and the police…I would never vote to not have this in our town.”
For Jason Letourneau, trust in local police was not the issue. His concern was how information could be used once it moved beyond North Attleborough.
“Who owns this once it leaves town limits?” he asked.
The council considers
Following the public hearing, the Town Council moved into deliberations, where many of the same questions surrounding data access, accuracy and oversight remained at the forefront.
Councilor John Simmons acknowledged that people do not have the same expectation of privacy while in public, but said the growing number of cameras connected through the Flock network raises concerns about the ability to travel freely.
He suggested the Bylaw Subcommittee may be best equipped to address those concerns before making a motion to request that Town Manager Michael Borg pause North Attleborough’s ALPR cameras. Councilor Andrea Slobogan seconded the motion.
During discussion, Councilor Laura Wagner asked to hear from Gideon Epstein, an American Civil Liberties Union representative attending the meeting. Wagner questioned how information could be used across state lines when laws differ, citing abortion and gender-affirming care as examples of conduct that may be legal in Massachusetts but restricted elsewhere.
Epstein pointed to nationwide information sharing as one of his concerns with Flock, arguing that municipalities can be automatically opted into sharing, rather than information being exchanged only through individual requests.
Flock representative Karl Bach later disputed that characterization when Councilor Justin Pare gave him an opportunity to respond.
“There is no automatic sharing,” Bach said.
Councilor Dan Donovan questioned Bach about oversight of the system, including whether North Attleborough would be notified if someone outside the Police Department accessed its information. Bach said the town would not receive a notification, but searches and the users conducting them are recorded within the software.
“Every search can be reviewed,” Bach said.
Councilor John Costello questioned whether a warrant is required to access the database, to which Bach responded that there is no such requirement.
The discussion also returned to accuracy and the potential consequences of an incorrect match. Slobogan echoed concerns raised during the public hearing about the town’s liability if the technology were misused or a plate was misidentified.
“There are way too many unanswered questions,” Costello said. “Do we really want to trust this technology? We have other options we can explore.”
Wagner also backed the temporary halt.
“I support the pause,” she said. “We’ve had excellent police work before these cameras.”
Donovan then moved to send the issue to the Bylaw Subcommittee to establish guardrails “on how the data is used, not just how we collect it.” Councilor Keith Lapointe seconded the motion, which also passed unanimously.