The Patriot Post® · To Flock or Not to Flock

The anti-Flock camera movement has been gaining steam at the same rate as the automatic license plate readers have been popping up, with roughly 120,000 now installed across the nation.

The anti-Flock crowd — including a guy dressed up in a Darth Vader costume making the Empire’s case — argues against a massive surveillance and tracking system that records and stores everyone’s movements. They see this as a classic example of an intrusive Orwellian surveillance state because Flock has contracts with some 7,000 police departments across the country to provide its data upon request.

Although Flock cameras have been installed along public roadways and in parking areas, there is concern that they intrude on people’s privacy rights.

On the other side of the argument, Flock cameras are a useful tool that helps law enforcement respond to and investigate crime quickly. For example, Jacksonville, Florida’s sheriff’s department points out that since 2024, Flock has “helped solve 15 murders, 17 kidnappings, 6 forcible sex offenses, nearly 100 shootings, and 172 missing-persons cases.”

Those are no small potatoes, and that’s just in one department. In other words, law enforcement sees Flock cameras as critical for fighting crime. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that surveillance cameras are nothing new, as they are found in almost every department and convenience store across the country. And these cameras have been placed specifically to help combat crime and, in turn, protect law-abiding citizens.

Of course, law enforcement does not have access to a store’s security cameras without the store owners’ permission. By contrast, law enforcement agencies with contracts with Flock gain immediate access to license-reader data.

The point is, public camera surveillance did not originate with Flock. Indeed, some 60 million homeowners across America have voluntarily placed Ring cameras on their houses. And they have done this for security purposes, which have also proven helpful in solving crimes.

One would think concern over placing a camera on one’s own house would be a much greater privacy concern than the use of Flock cameras on public roadways.

Even more insidious, the smartphone almost everyone carries on their person throughout the day not only continuously tracks the carrier’s immediate location but also monitors their conversations. This is, of course, for the purported purpose of responding quickly via AI assistants such as Siri, Gemini, or Alexa. Most people know this, yet, given the smartphone’s benefits, they choose to keep using it anyway.

Some respond by noting that one could choose not to put a Ring camera on their house and not use a smartphone. In other words, individuals are free to choose not to use such tracking tech. True. But one could also avoid driving a car and thereby have no concern of being tracked by Flock cameras.

Others point to instances where law enforcement has abused the Flock technology for their own illegal and nefarious purposes, such as a number of instances of police officers using the tech to stalk girlfriends or ex-wives. At least 50 such instances are currently being investigated. This misuse of the Flock technology is indeed problematic and should result in disciplinary action and, where appropriate, prosecution.

That said, 50 cases across the nation are a drop in the bucket compared to the many times the technology has helped law enforcement solve crimes. As noted above, in Jacksonville alone, it has been used to solve 15 murders and locate 172 missing persons. That’s one of America’s roughly 7,000 law enforcement districts.

One of the leading objections to Flock cameras is that they track all traffic and store the data in a centralized system accessible nationwide. Furthermore, AI technology makes this massive amount of stored data quickly accessible.

This raises questions that must be addressed, likely by both states and the federal government. Who ultimately owns the Flock data? How long can Flock store this data? And what are the legal parameters for its permissible use by both Flock and law enforcement?

The fact of the matter is, this camera technology — Flock is not the only company involved in this license-reader data collection — is not going away. As has always been the case, as technology evolves, so too do the rules surrounding its use. Simply calling for its ban will likely fail in the long run. Regulating data collection rather than banning technology is the better approach.