The meeting drew a crowd of privacy advocates, including members of a newly formed grassroots group that celebrated the contract cancellation but said the fight is not over. They are now urging the city to adopt an ordinance that would require a City Council vote before Haverhill or its police department could adopt any new surveillance technology.

"An ordinance that requires residents have a say via a council vote on any new surveillance technology that the city or the police department wants to adopt in Haverhill," said Annie Ryan, one of the organizers who protested outside the meeting. Ryan said public pressure has already had a direct effect on addressing privacy fears.

The mayor canceled the Flock contract last week, saying that while the technology had assisted police investigations, the company failed to provide sufficient safeguards to protect residents' privacy.

The debate in Haverhill reflects a broader struggle over how police use data collected by automated camera systems. Flock cameras, mounted on roads and in neighborhoods, scan license plates and store the information in databases that can be shared with law enforcement agencies far beyond the city where the cameras are installed.

Kade Crockford of the ACLU of Massachusetts told the subcommittee that the scope of such surveillance raises serious concerns. "The scope of the surveillance, the fact that everyone is being tracked, the scope of the data sharing, sharing with departments outside of your city or town, those raise very serious concerns about accountability and oversight," Crockford said. "Massachusetts needs to join the many other states in New England and across the country that have state laws on the books to regulate police use of this technology."

State Representative Steven Owens is working on legislation to do just that. He plans to file a bill next legislative session aimed at addressing public concerns about the technology.

"Law enforcement will tell you it's a useful tool and we agree that it is, but there needs to be reasons to do these searches, to do this tracking," Owens said. "We can't be in a situation where everybody who uses our roads is being tracked, bought, sold and commodified by a third-party company."

Flock Safety has recently weighed in on the push for state regulations. In a virtual meeting with the policy think tank R Street Institute, the company's senior director of policy, Andrea Korb, said legislation can help mitigate concerns.

"We really advocate for strong legislation state by state. I think that benefits everyone," Korb said. "I think there is a lot of fear and concern for this technology right now, and we want people to know your legislature has looked at this and here are the safeguards put in place."

Flock Safety did not respond to a request for comment.

The push in Haverhill and at the State House comes as communities across Massachusetts grapple with questions about how long license plate data is retained, who can access it, and whether residents have a meaningful say in decisions to deploy surveillance cameras. For advocates, the local ordinance and the statewide bill represent two tracks toward the same goal: transparency and accountability before the technology goes up, not after.

Owens' bill is expected to be taken up in the next legislative session. Haverhill's City Council has not yet scheduled a vote on the proposed surveillance ordinance.