Southold Town Councilwoman Alexa Suess called on her colleagues Wednesday to reconsider the town’s use of Flock surveillance cameras, contending that the technology’s ability to collect and share information about residents and visitors poses serious privacy risks that may outweigh its law enforcement benefits.

During Wednesday morning’s Town Board work session, Suess delivered a pointed critique of Flock Safety, the private company whose automated license plate readers have become the subject of growing controversy locally and nationwide.

“I really do believe that we should reconsider our relationship with Flock, or at the very least commit to not renewing a contract,” Suess said, while acknowledging that the technology provides legitimate law enforcement benefits. “I just don’t think that the benefits outweigh the costs.”

The discussion came ahead of a planned meeting with Suffolk County Sheriff Errol Toulon’s office, which Southold officials said has been postponed three times by the sheriff’s office. Most Flock cameras operating in Southold are controlled by Suffolk County, while the town directly controls just three.

Suess said widespread complaints from residents, along with numerous incidents of vandalism targeting the cameras, underscored the need for a broader public discussion.

Her principal concern was what happens to the information the cameras collect. Suess questioned Flock’s data-sharing practices, its encryption protections and the extent to which municipalities can prevent information from reaching outside agencies or private entities.

She cited reported instances elsewhere in the country in which Flock allegedly shared information despite restrictions imposed by municipalities. She also questioned changes to the company’s contractual language governing data ownership and disclosure.

Suess called Flock Safety a private “data aggregation platform that’s marketed as a law enforcement tool.”

The councilwoman argued that information collected by license plate readers could potentially reveal far more about individuals than their driving habits. By tracking vehicles over time, she said, such systems could help establish where people live, work, worship, seek medical treatment or participate in political activities.

That information, she warned, could become valuable to data brokers, insurers, corporations and other organizations seeking to build detailed profiles of individuals.

“There are so many uses for this data that have the potential to negatively impact the average Southold visitor or resident, and that’s where my primary concern lies,” she said.

Unlike many smartphone apps, Suess noted, motorists have no meaningful opportunity to opt out of roadside surveillance.

“There is no privacy option,” she said.

She emphasized that her objections should not be interpreted as opposition to license plate readers generally. Systems that store information locally, without broadly sharing it across outside networks, could preserve investigative capabilities while providing stronger privacy protections, she argued.

Supervisor Al Krupski agreed that the board needed to distinguish between the public safety value of license plate readers and concerns about the private company’s handling of information.

“We’re not looking to sacrifice public safety,” Krupski said.

Councilwoman Anne Smith suggested the town consider immediate safeguards while undertaking a broader review of the technology, including its contractual relationship with Flock. She recalled a previous meeting with a company representative who she said was unable to answer board members’ questions, adding that the town should examine what protections it could implement quickly.

Councilwoman Jill Doherty said that “we need to bring the [Southold police] chief into the conversation,” and Smith agreed. Councilwoman Kate Stevens suggested consulting law enforcement technology experts and the New York Association of Towns to better understand the town’s options.

Suess noted that other municipalities have terminated Flock contracts over similar concerns and urged Southold to consider doing the same.

No decision was made Wednesday.

Krupski encouraged residents to submit questions ahead of the upcoming meeting with sheriff’s office, saying advance preparation would allow for a more productive discussion.

For Suess, however, the fundamental question remains whether Southold should continue participating in a surveillance network whose ultimate reach and consequences, she argued, are not fully understood.

Town Beach erosion study

The Town Board also discussed ongoing efforts to address erosion at Town Beach, where a state-funded study will examine ways to protect the waterfront property and improve public safety along the adjacent county road.

Krupski said the town secured a grant last year through New York Sea Grant, which has engaged environmental consulting firm Anchor QEA to coordinate the study. The adjacent county road, which Krupski said needs to be elevated, is also included in Suffolk County’s coastal resiliency plan.

Doherty urged the town to consider restoring a small-boat launch at Town Beach, particularly to improve emergency access for local fire departments. She suggested a relatively inexpensive, removable ramp that could be installed before a larger reconstruction project.

Suess questioned whether installing a ramp before the erosion work could result in wasted effort or damage. Krupski said the boat launch would be considered as part of the broader study, with meetings involving town, county and state officials expected to begin soon.