Frustration has been growing across the country over the expanded use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras. Flock cameras, produced by a company called Flock Safety, are automated cameras with a system that tracks vehicles, scanning their license plates, make, model, and even physical characteristics like dents and roof racks.

With some 110,000 of these Flock cameras popping up across the nation, vandalism and cutting down the stands or poles on which the devices are mounted have become increasingly common. This destruction of camera systems has been attributed to a form of protest.

Some people see Flock cameras as a violation of their privacy rights. Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley defends his company, claiming that safety “is a fundamental right” he guards. It’s unclear where Langley got that idea, since it can’t be found anywhere in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It does not provide for safety.

However, Langley is correct in arguing against the vandalizing of Flock cameras, noting that “we live in a beautifully democratic, capitalistic country where we can fight in court.” Destroying Flock cameras over what one considers a violation of Fourth Amendment privacy rights is not the way to fight such potential abuse.

The arguments against Flock cameras are that they serve as a de facto mass surveillance system that effectively records vehicle traffic and more in all the areas where they are placed. However, Flock is not a government entity but a private company that contracts with local police departments for access. Technically, it is not the government that is actively keeping tabs on public traffic, but that may be a distinction without a difference.

Concerns over privacy rights and data collection have led several city governments across the country to end their contracts with Flock. The biggest example of this is America’s second-largest city, where the Los Angeles Police Department was previously one of Flock’s biggest customers. The LAPD’s chief information officer, Dean Gialamas, explained, “This contract is not being renewed because of serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues, particularly around privacy and the data that is being collected from these cameras.”

The LAPD has backed off of Flock because it wants to avoid running afoul of any potential lawsuit until the question of privacy rights and data security is “ironed out through a contractual relationship.”

On the other hand, Flock cameras have helped with crime prevention and prosecution. For example, Flock cameras have helped police track down stolen vehicles.

“License plate technology is something our department has used for well over a decade, close to 10 or 15 years, as it relates to auto theft,” observes Bakersfield Police Chief Brent Stratton. “We have auditing processes and policies that are in place, data is only retained for 30 days, [and] it’s still a right-to-know, need-to-know component.” He added, “It’s not facial recognition software, it’s not something that leveraged or shared with federal authorities.”

Individuals using public roads naturally and understandably have limited claims to privacy rights. What one does in public cannot be deemed private.

There are legitimate arguments and concerns on both sides of this issue. Obviously, Americans should expect, whether in private or public, that they have the right not to be subjected to living in a surveillance state. This is not communist China, where the government actively keeps tabs on everyone for a variety of nefarious reasons, primarily for the sake of control. At the same time, as technology advances and the lines between public and private blur, the boundaries of what information the government and private companies are permitted to collect continue to evolve.

Both governments and private companies can use collected data for corrupt or perfectly good and beneficial purposes, meaning Flock cameras have no single solution.