After being blindsided by a Natick Police pilot of Flock Safety license plate reader technology, the Select Board this past week voted unanimously to end the trial and have the town set up a working group to explore the topic going forward. Select Board Chair Bruce Evans previewed the topic at the start of the Jan. 21 meeting, and presentations and discussion lasting just over an hour began at the 66-minute mark of the Natick Pegasus recording.

The Select Board received more than 60 emails from members of the public in advance of the meeting in which people shared concerns about uses of data collected and more, and a handful of residents also spoke during the meeting. Members of the public debated the topic online, and some reached out to us. We posted an article on Jan. 20 about the town’s plans and the scheduled Select Board agenda item (“Will Natick residents ‘Flock’ to Select Board meeting over police camera pilot?”).

Flock cameras and license plate readers are polarizing. Opponents are alarmed by possible Big Brother ramifications and of being part of a nationwide surveillance network, while proponents laud the technology for safety and security applications. Both the cities of Cambridge and Watertown recently nixed Flock deals.

Board Chair Evans within the first 2 minutes of the Jan. 21 meeting said the Board was not aware of the Flock pilot until the previous weekend when a member was asked by a resident about them, as people had started noticing stationary readers installed on poles around town. “This was news to us. We had not been notified they were active. We had not been notified of a pilot…,” so Evans contacted Town Administrator Jamie Errickson and Police Chief James Hicks and asked them to put together a memo on the topic to be discussed at the meeting.

“We share 100%-plus the concerns that have been expressed in a lot of emails,” Evans said, including “the unintended consequences of something seemingly innocuous.”

Chief Hicks apologizes and explains

Chief Hicks—who also was on the Select Board agenda for a general department update—began his remarks on the Flock pilot by apologizing to the board and community for notification of the pilot plan not being shared publicly before it began. “I want to take full responsibility, that’s on me,” he said.

(Note: Chief Hicks attempted to reach us ahead of the meeting after we sent an inquiry on Jan. 19, but we were not able to get back to him ahead of the meeting because of our personal travel plans.)

The department has been exploring possible use of Flock technology for years, and began receiving Flock data from other police departments in 2022, said Hicks. His presentation included the basics on license plate readers, which Hicks said Natick Police have been using as a cruiser-based traffic enforcement technology since before he arrived in town 15 years ago.

Increased interest in the latest technology started a few years ago, Hicks said, when members of his investigations division and those of nearby police departments approached him about it. They saw uses for the technology related to organized retail crime and narcotics activity in the area. Hicks wasn’t sold early on, unsure whether the cost vs. value was worth the investment, as well as because of data sharing concerns.

What further piqued Hicks’s interest, after starting to receive other communities’ Flock data in 2022, is that the Natick Police Department used such data for investigatory purposes more than 3,000 times. It also had access to data from big retailers, such as Macy’s and Home Depot.

Flock Safety circled back to the Natick Police in early 2025 to propose a pilot. At that point, the town was something of an “outlier” locally in not using such technology, Hicks said, with most using Flock (Wellesley uses a different vendor), Hicks said. “The technology was being used all around us,” he said.

After getting more information from his department on the possible value of collecting data from the readers in town, Hicks agreed on trying a pilot. He discussed license plate reader placement with town administration, and chose locations based on traffic flow analysis and where such readers might be most useful (the terms “license plate reader” and “camera” are sometimes used interchangeably since both record data, though Hicks clarified later that Natick specifically is testing license plate reader technology, not live-feed video cameras). Abutters were not notified of Flock equipment installations.

In evaluating possible use of the technology, Hicks said he still had concerns about cost, though the state also awarded Natick a 1-year grant it applied for to help fund such a program if it went beyond the pilot.

As for data sharing concerns, Hicks said under the pilot agreement with Flock, it was up to him what data could be shared outside the department. “At this point and time we’re not sharing our data with anyone… First I want to see how it’s being used internally,” he said, adding that even within the department only certain investigators can access it.

Hicks said Natick’s data sharing and storage practices going forward, if the town were to adopt the technology, would align with American Civil Liberties Union and Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association recommendations. He said Flock has issued assurances that it does not share data at the federal level, and said Natick and other police departments have pushed back on data being used for any immigration-related investigations or any violations of the Shield Law through requested mandatory fields in the program software. It can only be used for criminal investigations, he said.

Before summarizing his points, Hicks ticked off recent examples of cases solved using data collected by the gear. These included finding a missing elderly resident, solving a house break-in, and tracking down alleged credit card thieves. He pledged that using the technology wasn’t a done deal, that public and government feedback would be factored into decision making, along with further data from usage.

Board and public views

Board members then gave a brief report on public feedback they received, putting ChatGPT to work in finding themes. At a glance, it’s clear to see all those who wrote are opposed to continuing the pilot or permanently using the license plate reader technology, though some acknowledged possible public safety benefits. Privacy and mass surveillance are the top concerns.

Such themes were echoed during a rapid-fire citizen speak section, during which residents said the Flock technology makes them feel less safe. One resident who works in the security field described the location of a reader near where she lives means she is tracked and logged every time she leaves her house, while another resident in tech cited security breaches of video feeds from such technology. Yet another technology professional asked: “Has nobody read ‘1984’ here?”

During the meeting, the Board attempted to get clarification from a Flock representative regarding terms of the memorandum of understanding with the town and the 60-day opt-out period under that agreement. Board member Kristen Pope fired off a series of questions to the chief, including whether he thought his department would have been able to solve certain cases without the Flock data—he said in some cases, probably not.

Board member Linda Wollschlager asked Hicks how much of an in-depth look he took at some of the security and privacy issues, such as those raised by the Board and members of the public, in agreeing to take part in the pilot. Hicks, acknowledging that he’s not in the tech field, pointed to what he sees and hears within the law enforcement community locally and nationally. He said he does have concerns about hacking into video feeds (and has no interest in using such technology), but is less sure about the license plate reader technology, and that’s what the department is trying to learn more about during the trial.

Board member Rich Sidney, a retired tech professional, said one concern from him is that according to the terms of use of the the technology, municipalities may own the decoded data but not the original source data. “Once the original source is out there, it could be decoded by somebody else and used,” he said.

“I’m very concerned about these cameras…,” Sidney said. “I recognize the significant use they can have in some really serious criminal situations, but the significant impact they can have on non-criminal situations is very high as well. We can’t trade safety for freedom…”

Evans raised the idea of possibly expanding use of mobile readers in Natick’s police cruisers. But as for the installation of readers around town, he was skeptical. “There are too many unanswered questions,” he said. “Were we not in the ‘Trump 2.0’ regime I may have a different view on this but I probably wouldn’t anyway.”

Board member Kathryn Coughlin also asked a series of questions and made several other points before making a motion that the town opt out of its memorandum of understanding with Flock, and as a corollary motion, establish a working group involving the chief, Select Board reps, IT, town administration, procurement, and legal to come up with a policy, procedures and terms involving any possible adoption of license plate readers in Natick. The Board unanimously approved both motions.

“Maybe in September when things on the street weren’t so crazy with ICE and the debates about surveillance, maybe then it seemed like a really good idea,” Coughlin said. “But I think the best approach for the town at this point is not to decide whether or not it’s a good law enforcement tool and then opt in at the end of the 61st day [of the memorandum of understanding] and have a bill for $30,000, and then build a policy and then build procedures, and then execute a contract… I think we’re doing it backwards.”

Under this Board decision, the cameras should be removed soon.

Natick Report welcomes letters to the editor on Natick-related topics.

Dare we ask that you scan the QR code below (or click on it) if interested in supporting your local news source with a tax-deductible donation?