Good morning, everyone. Thank you all for being here. I call this meeting to order at time 1031. My name is Councilmember Jimmy Peluso. I'm very grateful to see such a large crowd. I had a feeling that we'd have a good group show up this morning. We're just going to go around the table real quick and do introductions, starting with Colleen. Colleen Hampsey, Council Research. Red is speak. Brady Norris for the administration. Shannon McGillis, Office of General Counsel. Nick Howland, City Council at Large, Group 3. Jimmy Peluso, City Council, District 7. Monet Holder, City Council Elect, at Large, Group 1. We're grateful to have City Council Member Elect Holder with us. She's going to be swearing in on Monday. I also want to recognize we have State Representative Dean Black in the room. He came here as well, and we're grateful to your presence, sir. There he is in the back. All right, so this meeting's gotten a good amount of fanfare, and I'm glad to see such a large group of folks in here who I think kind of mirror the political spectrum. And I think that's really important because this is an issue, or at least this is a conversation that's happening at the national level, at the state level, and at the local level about what are these cameras that have been popping up a lot in the past several years? What kind of data do they have? What relationship do they have with law enforcement? Is law enforcement getting the best use out of them? And also, is there constitutionality questions that we should be asking and that neighbors and communities have been asking for a while now? And so I just kind of want to get as many answers as we could at this moment. There's no draft legislation as of yet. Kind of tinkering with ideas of what I would expect to file if we can. And so, you know, we have one of our attorneys here, one of our best attorneys, who also worked in the prosecutor's office for quite some time, so she has a really good expertise on, you know, that kind of level of criminal justice. And all that to say, if you do have public comment cards, please bring them up. I want to hear from as many folks as possible, though we do have the room only for a limited amount of time. All right. So heading down the agenda. Goals for the automated surveillance equipment policies regulation and a possible temporary moratorium. So as we've been kind of looking at stuff from the policy perspective, from city council's perspective, I just don't know what, as a county and as a municipality, we have the rights to do when it comes to anything involving these cameras, right? They're in the right-of-way, a public right-of-way. So one may assume that being in the public right-of-way, you have to get a permit, or there must be some sort of methodology as to how they got installed. And so, first off, I don't know if the mayor's office or someone has done any research on this as to how some of these got installed, or if anyone has any knowledge of that. Brittany Norris for the administration. I don't have direct answers for you, but I've made a list of some of these questions, and we'll get insight back to you guys. Excellent. So, yeah, that was one of my first questions, is who's installing these cameras? And are taxpayer dollars being used to install them? Are there no taxpayer dollars being used to install them? But then when there's a subscription service, whether it be Flock or one of the other things, and that's the other thing of note here, is it's not just Flock, right? There are other – this is a larger conversation about kind of these automated camera devices. So, I think what I would like to see in the minor draft legislation that I have is kind of a couple different points. One is an immediate moratorium for about 120 days on any new cameras being installed in the city of Jacksonville. Two was an inventory of all cameras within the city of Jacksonville, a new process to be drafted that allows for public participation for when cameras do get installed or are going through the installation process, which I believe would go through the CPACs. I think that makes sense. CPACs, for those of you familiar, are the community groups, the citizen-led groups. We have, I think, five of them, six? There's six of them throughout the city. And so, oftentimes, kind of land use and zoning issues go before the CPAC. It's a good way for the public to be involved in the process. So, hey, if any new cameras are being installed, it has to go through and be briefed in front of that group. And then the last thing that I've really been tinkering with is – and it's what I've been hearing a lot – is how do we maybe remove these cameras? Now, the first thing I should note is, in my conversations with JSO, they're very much in support of these cameras and have said they have helped lead to reducing crime, to solving crimes, to ensuring that if there's a missing persons or something along those lines or someone who's running from the law, that these are a value add. And I don't dispute that. I don't think that that is – I think so long as one crime is solved because of it, you could say, all right, I see the value in this, the crime prevention piece. However, it's just a matter of, from the constitutional side, well, we want to make sure that neighbors and those who live in the communities adjacent to these cameras are, A, aware that there's a camera to begin with, and, two, if they don't want the camera right outside their neighborhood or within their neighborhood, what kind of process exists to not only give them as much information about that camera as possible, but ways to potentially remove the camera? And so what I've been kind of tinkering with is if ever a neighborhood wants a speed hump, right? I'm using a weird process here. If ever a neighborhood wants a speed hump, they usually go through their city council member or go through a process where they get a petition solicited from their neighbors. Then a more formal petition process goes out to the property owners, and they select whether or not they want a speed hump or not. So I would envision, if we were looking to remove a camera, that it would go through a similar process, that the neighborhood would come to their electeds or through the CPAC or through the city in general and just sort of a petition process would go out to folks. They would say yes or no. They want the camera removed. As for how much it would cost to remove the camera, that part I don't know, nor do I know if public dollars would be used to remove the camera or if it would be up to the neighborhoods and communities. These are things I'm just tinkering with that I've spoken to general counsel about, and they are doing their best to research this. Are there any thoughts or comments from my colleagues at this moment? Council President Howland. Yeah, thank you, Councilman Faluso. I was in the office today, so I wanted to already, and when I saw you're having this meeting, I wanted to drop by because this is a serious issue. It's a polarizing issue, and I think it's one that is really at the juxtaposition between public safety and privacy. I think it's one we shouldn't rush into. We should have kind of a community-wide debate on this. I know I've been talking, besides being Council President, I'm also the JSO liaison, so I speak regularly with the sheriff and his team on issues such as this. And we've been talking on this issue, and the sheriff shares the same concerns. It's a very effective public safety tool, but he's concerned about misuse of data and concerned about protecting Fourth Amendment privacy rights. And I think he's shown through his four-year tenure in the office, four-plus years, that he's willing to hold his own officers accountable in misuse. I think they've done that with David data and other things. So we have to think about those things as we go forward. We also need to think about the state has been clear that they want to address this issue. I heard the current governor mention that he'd like to address it. I've heard the incoming governor mention that he'd like to address it. Have you already chosen who's the governor? Is that what you're saying? I have. I've heard the state legislature think about how they'd want to address it. So I think we need to think about the issue very carefully and make sure that we find the right balance, listen to community concerns, and ensure that we protect people's privacy rights. Thank you, Council President. Councilmember Elect, do you have any comments or thoughts on this? You don't have to, but I just want to give you an opportunity. No, I feel like I have to. No, just appreciate the opportunity. Glad that the room is full. This is an issue that I've heard a lot about over the last couple weeks and months and a lot of concerns from all over Jacksonville, from beaches, north side, south side. I know there's something that we need to come into alignment on, but do appreciate the benefits of public safety with these cameras, but also understand the concern around surveillance and privacy. So happy to be here today to hear more from the public. Thank you. And Ms. McGillis, I'm sorry to put you on the hot seat here. I'm seeing that a number of counties and cities within the state of Florida, because, you know, if you look at the back of this handout, it shows a number of municipalities and parts of the country where a contract was canceled with whether it be Flock or one of the other private companies. However, very few of them are within the state of Florida, right? And so state law mandates a lot, and they have a lot of control over our counties and our municipalities. So it is kind of better, you know, it's good to see stuff from Connecticut and Massachusetts and Wyoming, but state law in Florida is very different. So I don't know, Ms. McGillis. I'm seeing a few stuff in here from Tampa, St. Pete, Leon County, and Lake County. What kind of rights do we potentially have? Are we able to say, hey, you can't build anything in the right-of-way, even if it's a public entity that can do it, or do you have any thoughts on that? What other counties have done and what cities and other counties have done in other states, I have a distinct feeling that there is a lot more being done. It just doesn't make an Internet search very quickly, especially when you're talking about the passage of laws. Sometimes it takes, you know, our process takes six weeks minimum, so sometimes it's just not actually in the public view quite yet. But the second level on that, and it would be something I'd have to look at each one of these separately, is just because a municipality has passed an ordinance doesn't mean that ordinance is actually fully lawful, because they may be having a policy declaration more than actually a change in the law. So I'd have to drill down on each one of them. And as to what can you do where, it depends on the what and the where, because of is it a state road, is it a city road, whose camera is it? There's a lot. It's a really broad, detailed, fact-based question that I'm happy to dig into. Excellent. And we appreciate that. I think it's kind of worth digging into. And, you know, to the – actually, State Representative Dean Blight, do you want to come up here and speak from kind of your perspective on this? It is not mandatory, sir. I just want to give you the time and attention if you'd like. Have a seat with us. Thank you. Well, I think the city council president said it well when he said we stand at the juxtaposition between security and liberty. And we have to be very cautious in how we proceed. We want to be safe. We want to make sure law enforcement has the tools to keep us so. But we also want to make sure that we don't create the tools inadvertently in the service of security for one day a police surveillance state to emerge. And speaking as your state representative, I know that many of my colleagues in Tallahassee share this concern. We want to make sure that we remain a free people but also a secure people. And so to that end, councilman, thank you for calling this meeting. President, councilman-elect, thank you for being here. I think this is a very healthy discourse. And I stepped in here before my other meeting because, above all else, I wanted to hear what you all have to say. And so the less I speak, the more value I will get from you. And so with that, I'll close. And thank you, councilman. Thank you, Rep. And I do appreciate you showing up. I didn't want to put you on the spot, but I knew you'd have some pretty good perspective on this. And you do have a district that is very diverse in terms of, you know, it's very rural in some parts and quite a lot of new neighborhoods in other parts. I do want to dive into public comment because I do think – do you have something else going on? Maybe one last thing. Please go ahead. I was bringing up in case anyone wants to make mention of it during public comment is when I was talking with Sheriff Waters recently about how the state is likely to take a position on this. He said, well, there's no reason that we can't take a position now to shore up privacy rights in the meantime. And I understand that there might be another council member considering a piece of legislation that would potentially make misuse of LPR data a more serious transgression, so a Class D misdemeanor or accompanied by fines and potentially jail time. And that is a measure to address concerns right now about abuse of LPR data and then wait and see how the state handles some other things. So there might be some of those things, which would be a proactive way of protecting privacy rights in the meantime while we have this discussion. Understood. And, yeah, I mean, I'm not here to necessarily rush things, but I am also here to recognize that we have an election in March and then – is it January or is it December that the new governor shows up and the new legislature gets – I mean, there's a significant amount of time. We're in – August? We're in August right now. And so, you know, I do want to make sure that even if we just do a moratorium until that point where the new legislature kind of meets, which I think is January, we should do something. And I think we're about to hear from speakers, and I kind of want to get their thoughts. We're going to go through pretty quickly, just because there's a lot of speaker cards. I want to give people about two minutes' time, just because we don't have the room too long. Erin Perkins. Next up after Erin is Brooke Baneer. And would each speaker please say your name and if you're – if you either – your address or if your address is on the card, you can simply say address on file. Is – give the red – look for red. There we go. How about now? Everybody hear me? All right. Erin Perkins, 55 West Knight Street. Live here in Springfield. I'm a bike up here. I'm going to try and condense three hours of conversation into two minutes. Okay. One of the things that's not being discussed and I'm a little concerned of is a fiduciary responsibility. It's mapped out. Like, we're setting ourselves up to have yet another asset that we have to pay maintenance and upkeep on. Hurricane comes through. People are going to cut these down. The newest and greatest technology comes out. How is that contract settled? Installed improperly? Are we on the hook because a technician installed it incorrectly? That's one big issue. We definitely need to pause and get that sorted out. The safety, the other regulations, the other cities. This is a brand new tool. This is a first off the assembly line concept. We're making a ring camera system for the whole city and other cities are taking a pause button. We should, too, pull back. This thing is going to evolve. Other municipalities are going to figure out the rights and regulations and how to use this. We shouldn't be spending money and we shouldn't be wasting all the taxpayers' time if we're going to do it wrong. Let's sit back, pause, get it right the first time. In my world of air traffic, when we put a new equipment system in, we do a safety panel, and we try to determine is it even feasible or is it worth the time and investment? Are we going down the right way? It seems like in this case, what we did was we put the technology in place first, and now we're trying to figure out how we should deploy it. We need to pull back, figure out how to deploy it, and make it sensible. And the last piece I want to get – I'm trying to go fast. That's why I'm stumbling. The last piece I want to get across is that the frustration you're hearing, and it's multiple places, is in the absence of information, people are going to insert their own opinion into that space. So we need – if and when we move forward with this concept, there needs to be clear, concise information how it's going to be deployed, and people should have a chance to ask questions and get answers, not I'll get back with you. There should be a clear information of how this is done so we can know how it's deployed so I don't insert my own fears into that space. Thank you for your time. That was less than two minutes. You did a great job. Brooke Bennerk, and then Frederick Ruddolph. Good morning. My name is Brooke Babineau, and a citizen here, and concerned. One of the points that I'm not sure it was totally addressed is that the FLOC companies have been provided with access to driver's license information. That, to me, is a definite concern. Initially, how did these companies get ruling or be allowed to install a private camera on public device, public locations? And secondly, that needs to be tracked back. Are there any restrictions? Are there any requirements for that licensure? And are there any limitations as to what they can have access to? That is a deep concern, because if it's wide open, technology, like the FLOC cameras, are essentially like a hammer. You can use it to build things, or you can use it to destroy things. It's all depending upon the restrictions or the intent of using that tool, and that's my concern. Thank you very much. My name is Frederick Ruddolph. My address is on the card. I'm here now to present my opinion against the broad collection of private citizens' movement data through automatic license plate readers, signal detection systems such as signal trace, similar systems operated by private entities. My first argument I want to make is that every person on their way to this meeting likely passed multiple FLOC cameras. Very recent history, association data like this would absolutely have been used to target individuals for harassment, list them as political dissidents, or to have them imprisoned under false pretenses. Can you get closer to the microphone so you can get recorded? Thank you. Recently, we have been shown that the slippery slope is not a fallacy. These automatic tracking systems are operated by private companies and are beholden to the shareholders who will push them to make as much money as possible. That means a constant flow of new products and services all centered around the collection and analyzation of the movement data of private citizens. The expansion of these networks into an artificially intelligent panopticon is not that far from science fiction. The comparison of location data collected by cell phone companies is often brought up. The part where it's always left out is that federal and state statutes require specific legal thresholds to be met before those records are obtained. Right now, all that's needed for any officer to access civilian movements through the ALPR is the case number. I can belabor the point all day, but the bottom line is this. The average citizen should be free from government overreach and constant surveillance. Systems like these ALPRs collecting every bit of movement from every citizen just in case is an invasive cancer. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Tim Vergens, followed by Michael Melton. Hi. My name is Tim Vergens. My address is on file. I work as a senior software engineer at a civic tech company. I have followed much of the reporting around Flock and other surveillance companies, and I have grave concerns about security postures at many of these companies, about the actual design of the products to be able to enforce restrictions on who can search things. They are designed to make it easier for law enforcement to access these records. That's part of their value proposition, and I think that they will always be prioritizing making it easier over making sure that citizens' privacy rights and constitutional rights are protected. I don't think that penalties for misuse are likely... I have very little faith that that would make much of an impact on privacy because, if anything, it would just raise the stakes for police officers to... It's more of a, oh, no, I'm throwing a colleague under the bus and potentially putting them in jail, which is not something that police officers don't want to do. I also just wanted to add that I would love for the moratorium to include not just don't add new cameras, but let's also disable the cameras that we have for now. We don't even have to take them down. There are cities that have put bags over them. Until a public policy has been decided as a community, I think that that would be a great way to, in the short term, make sure that they're not violating people's privacy rights. Thank you. Two minutes. I'm very grateful. Michael Melton and then Ben Alcorn. Hello. My name is Michael Melton. I'm an archaeologist and study human populations. There's going to be some tax revenue from tickets that are going to be distributed from the system, but the value is from the data itself. Facebook has a revenue of $270 billion a year from a free website. Why is it free? Well, it's not. It's taking your data and giving it to advertisers. Those advertisers then tell you what you want to buy. TikTok collects data on American users. A Chinese company has our data, but we don't have data on them. Pokemon Go, a company that has spent 10 years collecting our data, the parent company, Niantic, has sold itself to the Saudi Arabian government. Not a company, not a company, a government has data on where our children go after school and what they buy. They have our shopping habits, our leisure activities. Could you imagine if we were to go to war with a nation that knew what our behavior was during a school shooting or a natural disaster or a celebrity death? And the question that I have to ask is, what happens to our data when FLOC goes bankrupt and they have to sell their assets? All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Ben Alcorn, followed by Laura Harris. Benjamin Alcorn. My address is on file. I think it's a complicated issue that doesn't fit into our traditional two-party system like we've got it designed, like most issues do. So it's a little nuanced. And I think the next thing I want to say is a moratorium is not a ban. It's just time. It's just a pause to take time to look at the issues and talk it through, especially since it is a nuanced issue. There are some pros. I've seen it. I work in the construction industry, and cameras have been put on job sites and stopped and helped catch criminals that have, you know, gone to job sites to steal things, which makes affordability of houses higher, right? So, I mean, there's real good case uses of this. However, you know, and we want to give JSO, you know, the tools to do their job. We want to be safe. But misidentification, harassment, privacy, liberty, those are issues that matter. And they need to be discussed. And so I think transparency is really the issue. This is obviously authorized in JSO's budget, which is a long budget with a lot of line items, you know, that not a lot of people necessarily see. What is the cost of this? Because it is a taxpayer cost, ultimately. Our taxes pay JSO, right? So some transparency there. What is it being used for? Is it just being used for license plates? I think JSO made a statement that that's the case. I don't know if that's necessarily fully true or not. So transparency is the issue. Is this, who's this data being shared with? Who else has access to this data besides JSO? Is, for instance, immigration customs, do they have access to this? Does ICE have access to this? You know, just wondering. And we don't know the answers to that, right? So I want to go back to, you know, a moratorium is not a ban. So thank you. Next up, Laura Harris followed by Matt Hammond. You're fine. You're fine. Matt, if you can just kind of prep. Go ahead, ma'am. I am not an activist. I'm just an old lady who's retired. I'm here to tell you about an experience that I had in 2022 where one Saturday morning I went out to my driveway and my car was gone. Name and address, please. Oh, it's on the card. He's got that. Your name, please. Oh, I apologize. Laura Harris. I'm sorry. I'm not accustomed to public speaking. You're doing great. You got a minute and 40 seconds. If you don't mind, I'm just going to read this since I'm going to be consistently. My name is Laura Harris. I live in Jacksonville, Florida. In 2022, one beautiful Saturday morning, I walked out to my driveway. It was empty. My car was gone. I posted on Facebook looking for my vehicle. I fell for a scheme claiming to have the ability to find my car. I paid them for help, victimized again. When police eventually recovered my vehicle in a week or so, all my belongings were gone. In their place were dozens of other people's credit cards, purses, and wallets. Initially, I didn't understand why I was asked to retrieve my car from the suspect's address or the suspect's residence or why the police had not removed items that obviously did not belong to me. I eventually realized that I was being ruled out as a suspect. I was one victim. There were many others. If flat cameras had been in place, then that car might have been located faster, and some of those people might have been spared the theft and the months of cleanup that followed. I understand the privacy concerns. We're already tracked on our phones. We're already tracked on our phones, our computers, our streaming accounts. These cameras photograph license places. That's two minutes, ma'am. That's two minutes. Could I ask for just one? I'm afraid. I've got a large stack, ma'am. We gave you two minutes. I gave you one more time. Well, I would just like to add that it cost me well over $5,000. Understood. All right. Matt Hammond, please come up. Next up, Addison Patrick after Matt. Loan is Matt Hammond. Address is on file. Obviously, everyone has been, most of us or many of us in here have been victims of crimes. That's not the point of the question here. This use of flock cameras, other APLRs, or any of those devices that have been around for many years are direct violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. There is U.S. Supreme Court law, U.S. versus Jones, 565, U.S. 400. The Justice Court reversed, concluding that the admission of evidence obtained by warrantless use of GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. Right? So this is pervasive, warrantless search of citizens. Right? Carpenter versus U.S. 585, U.S. 296. The U.S. Supreme Court again reversed, holding that the acquisition of Carpenter's cell site records was a Fourth Amendment search. So the third-party records basis does not hold here either. So either the flock's holding it or the state's holding it. Right? If the state's holding this information, then it's public record. People can access it for themselves. If they destroy it in seven days, then they are in violation of protecting state records. Right? Also, Florida has an anti-stalking statute. It's 784.048, which makes it a crime for any person, or office, to willfully and repeatedly follow another person. Thank you for your time. Patrick. Go ahead. Do you see a person up there, Addison? Addison? Hello. Do you see a person over there? All right. Thank you, Corey. Go ahead, Addison. Good morning. My name is Addison Patrick, Addison Liberty Patrick, and my address is on file. I'm sure there's going to be a lot more people who are going to talk about the violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. So I will leave that alone for now. I do want to say something that I don't believe I've heard anybody say this morning. Somebody did mention what happens to the data if Flock or any other companies like Axon or whoever purchases these, like, where does that data go? So how long do they have access to the data? Right now, I believe some of it is in the AWS cloud. I think that's an issue. I think this could be a national security issue. I think this is a bad, bad, bad thing all around. We have people from all political parties represented who are speaking against us for some reason or another, and we have to pay attention to all of this. The JSO town hall meeting that they had for District 6 that I was at, they mentioned that they're a nine-month backlog of just responding to body cam requests because of all the things that have to be redacted. So if we have Flock cameras and JSO has any control over those and they have to redact public information that's sensitive, how long would it take us to even find out what they even have going on there for a records request? So we're already in almost a year of a backlog. They also have drones. I think this is a slippery, slippery slope. We've got all the cameras everywhere. They're all talking to each other. We're being tracked, and now we've got the drones. So if you're not aware, go look those up. JSO has those. They're deploying those in certain situations. So I support canceling the full contracts, getting rid of them, and anything else that we have in that sphere. And if not, I support the temporary moratorium so we can just get rid of them now. Thank you so much. Thank you. It was Patrick Jennifer Dean followed by Rachel Rebout or Bobout. My apologies. Jennifer Dean. I'm sorry. All right, Jennifer, two minutes. Rachel, you're next. All right. Hi. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Dean, address on record. I want to make one thing very clear. I am not against security, and I'm not against technology. I support technology that helps law enforcement protect communities and improves emergency response. But the security and surveillance are not the same thing. Security protects people. Surveillance monitors people. And when technology can track, record, collect, store information about ordinary citizens, we need to safeguard before that technology expands. Technology is moving faster than many of our laws and policies. We do not know exactly what these systems may be capable of five or ten years from now, how databases may connect, how artificial intelligence may analyze the information, or how information collected today can be used tomorrow. That is why the public deserves answers now. Who owns this technology? Who controls it? Who has access to it? Why is the information being collected? How long is it stored? How are audits used? What happens if it's abused? That should be clear limits. There should be clear limits. Oversight, transparency, accountability, and meaningful public input before surveillance technology is installed, expanded, or renewed. We should also ask whether the technology is actually solving the problem. Not every public safety problem requires another camera. Sometimes better lighting, staffing, communication, emergency response, or less intrusive technology may be a better situation. The question should always be, what actually makes people safer while creating the least unnecessary intrusion of their lives? I support law enforcement. I support fighting crime. I support innovation. But I also support privacy, civil liberties, and reasonable government. There are things that are not mutually exclusive, and public safety matters. Thank you. Thank you very much. Rachel Beaubout, and then Marshall Brannick. You have two minutes, ma'am. Thank you. My name is Rachel Beaubout. My address is on file. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. This is my first time ever speaking at a public meeting, so I'm – excuse me. I'm sorry. You're okay. I'll stop your time for a minute. Oh. You're all right. Take a deep breath. I stopped time. I told my son I was coming this morning, and I would just like to say then that I'm speaking on his behalf. He's been taking civics class in public school, and I told him that it's basically us citizens' responsibility. So if I don't come to a public meeting and speak up, I know that he can't, and so on. I do want to just mention that State Representative Black said that we want to remain a free people. It's important, and that to keep our freedom for security and safety. In the spirit of our 250th birthday, I just would like to read that Thomas Jefferson said in 1774 that a free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. It seems that there's an emphasis on government rights, municipal jurisdiction to install this equipment. Recently, on a Columbus, Ohio town meeting, Dr. Viet Trinh, who is a Ph.D. in crime surveillance and policing at Ohio State University, he said on the record that he believes in his professional opinion that Flock Cameras is basically investigating, everyone is under investigation at all times, and he equivocated that to pre-crime. I'm sure everyone in this room, a certain movie comes to mind when you think of that. So it goes beyond protecting Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in our personal property and our effects. A few minutes, ma'am. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Marshal Brannock, followed by LaTosha Hobbs. Good morning. Marshal Brannock, my address is on file. Councilman Paluzzo first, thank you for holding this meeting and taking the time to hear us out, and thank you for your service in the Navy. That's going to be important in a second. For context, I just retired from the Navy last month after 20 years. I spent that time aboard the Iwo Jima before it left Jacksonville, and we actually may have been stationed in Norfolk around the same time. So somewhere along the way, I also developed a strong interest in technology and data. Couldn't code my way out of a paper bag, but I spent enough time working with data, and I can understand how seemingly insignificant pieces of information can be aggregated and what that can bring forth. So I'm not here simply because Constitution go burr or to repeat some argument that you've probably already heard. I want to look at this risk created by collecting and retaining this data from a few different angles that I don't think have received enough attention in public conversation, maybe in private, but I'm going to say it out loud. ATFP training, otherwise known as anti-terrorism force protection, teaches us to recognize patterns and protect information about our routines. We vary our routines, minimize our digital footprints, and avoid unnecessarily revealing where we live, where we work, when we arrive, what our daily patterns look like. We do that because these individually harmless pieces of information can become valuable intelligence when aggregated. I mean, we were literally told to stop using Fitbits while on base because they map out our movements. Now, I understand that all these items mentioned aren't collected by Flock and that a single picture of a license plate on a road is not particularly revealing, but thousands of them paint a different story, and the Supreme Court just ruled on this recently with the Carter case. Now, apply that concern here in Jacksonville. We have an enormous military presence. If a foreign adversary associates a person of interest with a vehicle and license plate, access to retained LPR data or active feeds could turn into ordinary traffic and observations, and you know, you understand. I appreciate it, and thank you for your service. Congrats on your retirement. Latasha? After Latasha, it's going to be Chad Sharland. Hey, good afternoon. Latasha Hobbs. My address is on file. I want to take a minute, a moment, to speak about the importance of lock cameras in Jacksonville. As a mother of a murdered child, this is my son, Maurice Hobbs. As a mother of a murdered child fighting for justice for my son, Maurice, I understand firsthand how critical evidence can be when a family is searching for answers. According to the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, as I stated at the last agenda meeting at City Hall, the license plate reader cameras have helped solve 15 murders, 17 kidnappings, six forcible sex offenses, nearly 100 shootings, and 172 missing person cases since 2024. Those are not just numbers. They represent families who need answers, victims who needed justice, and lives that were saved. I fully support the continued use of lock cameras because I believe public safety and accountability matter. I'm advocating to keep the lock cameras in use because I know what it feels like when a family is left searching for justice. I will continue fighting for Maurice. I will continue fighting for other families who deserve answers when violence enter their lives. If technology can help law enforcement identify suspects, violent criminals, murderers, locate missing people, recover evidence, and bring justice to families, then I believe we should continue investing in it while also ensuring appropriate safeguards and accountability. My son was robbed of his life. I was robbed of my son. My children robbed of their brother. I'll be damned if I let anyone rob me of his justice and justice for other families. Please keep up the flock cameras. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Natasha. Chad Sharland followed by Albert Stern. My name is Chad Sharland. I live at 3046B First Avenue in Fernandina Beach, and I am running for state house in District 15, which includes... You cannot campaign here, sir. I'm not. This is part of the presentation. The district includes parts of northern and northwestern Duval County, and when I drive from my home in Fernandina through Nassau and into Duval, as I routinely do, I am under constant surveillance from a network of flock cameras installed by local police and sheriff's department. I am treated like a suspect. The mass surveillance is unwarranted and performed without any reasonable suspicion. It is only a matter of time before this technology is turned on people like me. And I say people like me, meaning people in the political minority. I am non-party affiliated, but I oppose big tech and flock cameras and data centers. I support ending Florida law enforcement 287G agreements with ICE. And for doing all of this, I am considered an enemy of the state, as spelled out in a presidential executive order. I subject myself to additional tracking and targeting by speaking out at meetings like this, giving my home address to the very companies with the technology capable of tracking my every move. I am also an environmentalist, and it has been proven that the state of Florida, through the Fish and Wildlife Commission, has been using privileged law enforcement tracking data and tools to illegally and without cause investigate environmentalists in this state. I am a target. The people in this room are targets. These cameras make it easier for big tech and law enforcement and corporations to target, track, harass us, and do God knows what else in the future. The first responsibility of government is to protect the people. You can protect the people by removing these mass surveillance cameras. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Albert Stern, followed by Dragon Beloit. Hi, my name is Albert Stern. My address is on file. Thank you for having this meeting. Thank you for looking at the moratorium. Please do that. There is a lot of concerns, and I am deeply concerned about the mass surveillance state. Specifically, I want to speak about the Flock Camera Company specifically. This company has created a system that has been abused throughout the country, even here in the state of Florida, where people are using it inappropriately to stalk people. And it is clear that that company is not a serious security company. You wouldn't make something like that. Their CEO has gone on record saying that they've made mistakes. So, what I ask you to do is to think about that company. They have been, they are funded, and their startup funds come from places like Y Combinator, Mark Andresa's group. They're a tech company, like every other tech company. They're going to play by those rules. Once you get hooked on the heroin of this, they're going to change the price structure. They're going to change what they offer you. And then the cameras are going to be up there, and it's going to be too expensive. And what are you going to do? Are you going to take them down then? The other thing about tech companies is that they get hacked. Every tech company gets hacked. This is a tech company. It's not a security company. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Dragon Beloit, followed by Casey Jones. Hey, everybody. I'm Dragon Beloit. My address is on file. And as you know, I've been advocating about this for several months now. So, I think it's really interesting that we think that we shouldn't rush into a decision. But these showed up overnight. DISH is the people installing them, by the way. I've seen DISH go around installing them. And they're installed without breakaway plates at the bottom, which means if a car hits them, that metal doesn't move. And that person in the car gets very hurt. It's also really interesting that we think TK Waters will hold officers accountable. Charles Faggart, William McNeil, Jr., Wu Hayden, and Asia Bennett have something else to say on that. We have a lot of concerns of people that can't be here. I actually have a list of the concerns that I've put in on file for all the people that couldn't be here because it's 10.30 a.m. I understand we have to do it sometime, right? But a lot of people are working right now. And so, the working people that are being tracked every day usually couldn't come here. Also, if you're concerned about what other counties are doing, Pasco County has just canceled its entire FLOC contract even after the purchase of several FLOC drones and their replacement contract with Axon. It is not just FLOC. It is also Axon. It is also Motorola. Again, these are tech companies, not security companies. And they are not secure. Ben Jordan is a guy on YouTube, right? He's not exactly a huge whiz. But he's able to hack into these cameras within about 15 seconds. I don't want to know what people that do this as their job and as the way they make money, illicitly or otherwise, can do with that camera, that data, and that database. I am very concerned about the safety and security of Jacksonville. I am very concerned about the fact that I have, within a mile of my house, literally more than 20. They are pointed at children's homes. They are pointed at apartment complexes. They are pointed at public pools. These should not be used for this purpose, and I don't think we can. Thank you. Thank you. Casey Jones, followed by Yadira Gonzalez. How are you doing? Casey Jones, 725 First Street, South Jacks Beach. All the trust that we, the people, have, they're all lost. Every bit. We're being tracked. I mean, it's super scary. So we, the people, want them gone. We don't want them restricted. We don't want to. If you can't do what you're supposed to do, and what is that? What are you supposed to do? You know, you go to, the cops want to do what? They want to look at, they want to track you, they want to see your GPS, want to see your Google, whatever. That's what they got to do. Everybody knows what they got to do. So let me ask you a question. How is the government dancing all over the Fourth Amendment? Does anybody know? They're dancing on the Constitution because they're using a third party. That's what they're doing. And nobody, out of all the people that speak, and I appreciate everybody that speaks, but nobody's brought up the Constitution in the Fourth Amendment. This is what it's all about. They're dancing on the Constitution in the Fourth Amendment because they're using a third party. So, period. So, let me, let me, let me, where's the clock at? Minute 30. Huh? You got a minute 26. So, let me, let me quote our great governor of the state of Florida. And I know there's people on both sides. There's people on both sides that are against it. So, I'm not eliminating this. But let me, let me quote our great governor. I think these, and these mean the LPR, the licensed tag reader. He just got quoted yesterday. I think these licensed tag pleat rotors are out of control. That's what he said. The video's up on my Facebook page. So, that's two minutes, sir. They are out of control. Thank you. Yadira Gonzalez, followed by Robert Jeffries. Morning, council members. My name's Yadira Gonzalez. I'm a graduate public student at the University of North Florida. I'm here to talk about the clock cameras. So, the clock CEO recently has said that we should compromise our privacy just so we can operate these cameras. I think that is a crazy statement to say. I think also as a public health student, I want to talk about how we shouldn't compromise our privacy just so we can solve murders and kidnappings. Now, I do have empathy and sympathize with you that your son was murdered. I'm so sorry that happened to you. But I think it also, we should get to the bottom, the roots of this problem of why Jacksonville has so much crime, why we have so much gang-inflated activity. I think instead of installing more cameras and compromising our privacy, we should instead get to the root problem and have more violence prevention programs, and we shouldn't have that money. Instead of spending it on flawed cameras, we should spend that money more on after-school programs, things that prevent violence, having community members go out into the community, and just spend it more where the money should be spent. I think having flawed cameras is a waste of taxpayer money. We could use it to solve the homelessness problem. I work myself. Every time I go to class, I see a homeless person, and it's just not cool to have that many. As big as Jacksonville is, we shouldn't have this many homeless people. I also volunteered at a food pantry recently, and so many people have to go and get food. So I think we can also try to lower grocery prices, but thank you. Thank you. Robert Jeffers, followed by Andrew Scott. Good morning, counsel. Thank you for putting together this meeting. My name is Robert Jeffers. My address is on file. This may be a comedial reference to some people, but many people have gotten up here and talked about what this AI can do. Right? Hollywood has given us the script. We know what AI can do. When it is not put to good use, Hollywood has gave us a script. What can happen? Right? And we all know that. It might be funny to some people, but it's not. I haven't taken a stance for or against because I think that there's some very good things that can come out of fly cameras. I think that there's very good things that can come out of surveillance. I do believe in that. But then whenever it is used in a negative light, problems can occur. Right? And the privacy of our citizens are at risk, and it can potentially harm us as a society. My problem is that this is a reaction. All right? This meeting is a reaction. There's thousands of fly cameras over the state of Florida. Right? Where was the protections at the beginning when this stuff started coming out to say, hey, we don't want that? Did our state government not come together and say, hey, who's going to start installing this? And what protections are we going to put before we start mass installing these all the way across our state? This is a very reactive instead of a proactive thing. So now it's here. Now we have to deal with it. So now we're trying to figure out how to deal with it. So from here on out, I just want to make a statement. Let's be proactive, Jacksonville. I'm tired of being regressive. We start thinking about things in the past and how we want to move forward. But we can't move forward if we're being reactive. We need to be progressive and be on the forefront of this. This is a terrible – it's great that we're looking at this and putting the moratorium. And in place, we believe. But we need to be progressive in this and not reactive. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Andrew Scott, followed by D.L. Cummings. All righty. Good morning. My name is Andrew Scott. My address is on file. I've been a software developer and manager for over 15 years, worked in computer vision and some machine learning, so I'm a little bit familiar with this. And, like, this is how you get a police surveillance state. This is basically a package deal. This is the data set that anyone who wanted to abuse would dream of. It is – all this data is on AWS. Jax may own it, but they will not control it. And I found an online search saying that, basically, JSO has extended their data retention for a year, a year's worth of data. Now, Phlox, since they're coming under fire, has actually gone back and recommended seven days as a recommendation. Think about what you could do with everyone's traffic data for a year. Correlating that with any other data set would be crazy. So, yeah, and I didn't even know before that that they had been given access to the DMV information. So that's another data set. But I just – I'm really concerned about this because they're a tech company. All the protection is in place. It can still be hacked. It will be hacked. It will be abused. And the data is just sitting there. And we have no saying. Concert deal. Cummings followed by John Nooney. And we do have to cut off more. This will be the last public comment card I'm going to take. We've got to kind of go through public comment, and then I've got a few more comments I'm going to make, and we have to adjourn. Go ahead, sir. You have two minutes. All right. Good morning. My name is D.L. Cummings. Address is on file. So I think there are two questions that have not yet been answered that are very critical. That's number one, what is the actual efficacy in solving cases, crimes, et cetera? And number two, how necessary are these devices in doing so? So there's not a lot of data out there. And earlier this month, JSO posted on X and presumably elsewhere a number of cases of some were criminals, some were people missing, so on and so forth, of cases that were solved through the use of LPRs. Interesting, but doesn't tell me a whole lot. So I did a little digging. Turns out in 2024, in May, they actually posted, JSO, likewise on X and other social media, of a particular case of a shooting in the Hogan Creek area where there ended up being no fatalities, no injuries, but there was a bullet that went into a school bus full of children. They credited these devices in solving the case. And I think the problem comes with the word solve. So I did a little more digging, and I went to the Duval clerk, and I started digging up because they posted the names. And I read the charging document. As it turns out, all of the information that they would have needed to arrest the two individuals that they did came from witnesses. Witnesses said, this person did it. This person did it. This is what they were wearing. This is the vehicle they got in. This is the location that they went to. The cameras were just supplemental. Well, there's more to that story because I did a little more digging. And as it turns out, the two individuals at the time, one was 23, one was 17. The 17-year-old unfortunately passed away earlier this year. Circumstances are unknown, but I can only presume if you're involved in a shootout when you're 17, that doesn't leave you a very long life. The other individual had their charges dropped. It's two minutes, sir. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much. John Nooney, followed by Sean Costello. I'm not seeing John Nooney. Is John Costello in the audience for the room? Hello. My name is Sean Costello. My address is on file. I think some of the previous speakers already covered this, but just to reiterate, there is a FLOC camera pointed at a community pool at Meza Premier Apartments. And I've noticed that during this meeting today and also all of FLOC's official information, they're referred to as license plate readers. So it seems a little bit like a red flag to me that we're calling them license plate readers, but some of them are pointed in a spot where they would not be reading any license plates. And I know another speaker also mentioned that it's important that we understand how these cameras are being used, but also I think it's important to understand what they're capable of. And, again, like previous speakers I've mentioned with AI, what they're capable of today may be different than what they're capable of tomorrow. So it's probably going to be quite a difficult task to, like, make it clear what they're capable of. But I think that's really important for the council. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Nick Harding followed by Zuri Davis. I don't know if they're in overflow. Corey? All right. Council Member, you're at 1130. Are we able to extend at 12? No, no, you were noticed until 1130. I apologize, but that's the notice. Can we continue public comment and then? Outside of the meeting? You are outside of public notice. Folks, I'll stick around. We are going to adjourn this meeting. I will stick around and talk to anyone that has any more comments. We had a number of comment cards left. I want to thank my colleagues for being here today. This is incredibly important. I do intend to continue to move forward. I'm very concerned about these devices, but I do want to make sure that JSO has a major role to play in making sure that they're able to continue to solve crimes. But there is a line to be walked when it comes to personal security, personal privacy, and law enforcement. So there will be more to come in this conversation. I'm here to stick around, though. Thanks. If you did not get a chance to speak, you can email me directly, jpeluso, P-E-L-U-S-O, at C-O-J.net. Those comments are – you can also get one of my cards over there. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.