Touching on “the nerve of ‘1984,’” an Upstate New York mayor’s decision regarding citywide surveillance found her facing a lawsuit from the city council.
The rapid rate of technological advancement has left many reeling over mounting encroachments on privacy. A lead culprit for concern has been artificial intelligence-enabled license plate-reading cameras that, in recent months, have divided the people of Troy, New York, after learning the police were cleared to install the costly equipment without approval from the city council.
“The council is reviewing why no one other than the police department signed off on the initial contract; anything over $35,000 typically requires council approval,” reported The Washington Post, as the town of 52,000 had entered a contract with Flock Safety worth $156,000 for two years, the council argued to be illegal.
“I think it was done secretly, and when you aren’t transparent, that angers people. It touches on the nerve of ‘1984,’ and ‘Big Brother is watching you,'” Troy City Council President Sue Steele told the newspaper.
According to Troy Deputy Police Chief Steven Barker, “The cameras are used in almost every investigation our detective bureau pursues,” and the data is deleted after 30 days. Additionally, participation was paused in March after a resident identified one of the cameras and alerted others about them.
The outcry had spurred Mayor Carmella Mantello (R) to declare a public safety emergency on April 1, which led to a lawsuit from the city council last week over the authorized payment of $78,000 to Flock Safety.
“Mayor Mantello has no authority whatsoever to declare a public emergency just because she didn’t get her way in terms of policy,” contended Troy Residents Against Flock Cameras in a statement reported by WRGB. “It’s time for the mayor to wake up and smell the coffee: the people of Troy do not want the Flock cameras. Her support for these mass surveillance tools leaves her in a political minority.”
As previously reported, thousands of communities across the country have been impacted by Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs), prompting considerable pushback and even lawsuits for recording the movements of residents. DeFlock estimates that there are around 90,000 readers in use across the country.
Flock cameras are invading and coming to a city near you https://t.co/M9nIyKIYOm
— BPR (@BIZPACReview) November 24, 2025
Aiming to dispel concerns, Flock Safety chief information security officer Chris Castaldo said in a statement, “At Flock, we believe safety and privacy should go hand in hand, which is why our technology is built around transparency, accountability, and local control.”
“Our platform includes safeguards like audit trails to help ensure accountability at every step,” the official added.
Similarly, Mantello held fast to her support for the cameras, having argued that opposition is akin to desires to defund the police. “Public safety has always been — and will remain — my administration’s top priority. From the beginning, we took residents’ privacy concerns seriously and implemented safeguards, including disabling the national search function within the Flock Safety system.”
She accused the council of “frivolous litigation instead of collaboration.”
As part of an effort to find a compromise, the council had introduced a proposal to have data scrubbed after two days, a move the mayor deemed “dangerous, misguided and a gift to criminals.”
Regarding the suit, a statement from the council maintained, “The mayor has gone far beyond her lawful authority. If left unchallenged, it sets a dangerous precedent where the mayor can claim a public safety emergency any time she disagrees with the legislative branch, creating an unchecked power that echoes what is happening in Washington.”
- Charming town shaken after police install hidden AI monitoring cameras - May 18, 2026
- C-SPAN caller claims to be 3-time Trump voter, now says he’s seen the light of a Hitler-like brainwasher - May 18, 2026
- UK pastor arrested for sermon including historic violence of Islamists, charged with inciting religious hatred - May 18, 2026
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
