Flock Cameras: Why Can’t We All Agree?

Propaganda.

The End.

Do you want a longer answer? Well, let’s get into it.

What is Flock?

Flock Safety is a private technology company that sells automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera systems to law enforcement agencies, neighborhoods, businesses, schools, and local governments. Unlike traditional traffic cameras that monitor speed or red-light violations, Flock cameras are designed to capture images of passing vehicles and compare that information against databases of vehicles connected to crimes or other law enforcement interests.

The cameras typically record a vehicle's license plate, along with details such as the make, model, color, distinguishing features, and the direction the vehicle was traveling. They generally do not identify the driver or record continuous video. Instead, they capture snapshots of vehicles as they pass by and store that information in a searchable database for a limited period of time.

According to Flock Safety, the system is intended to help law enforcement quickly locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to crimes, assist with missing person investigations, and provide investigative leads after an incident has occurred. When a vehicle matching a law enforcement "hot list" passes a camera, the system can automatically notify officers in real time.

You’ll notice the words in bold above. I wanted to point out a fact that I can’t stop screaming about…it doesn’t matter what they typically, generally, or are intended to do. If it can be abused, it will be abused. But we’ll get into that later.

The Case for Flock Cameras

Any honest conversation about Flock cameras has to begin with acknowledging why so many communities choose to install them. The technology wasn't created to issue traffic tickets or generate revenue. Its stated purpose is to provide law enforcement with another investigative tool that can help solve crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing people more quickly than traditional investigative methods alone.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of Flock cameras is speed. When a vehicle connected to a reported crime or listed as stolen passes a camera, officers can receive an alert within seconds. Instead of relying solely on eyewitness accounts or waiting for someone to spot the vehicle, police have an automated system that can identify where and when it was last seen. In many cases, this can mean recovering stolen property faster, locating suspects more efficiently, or finding endangered or missing individuals before valuable time is lost.

Supporters also point out that Flock cameras can help solve crimes that otherwise might have gone cold. Even when there isn't an immediate alert, investigators can review historical vehicle data to determine which vehicles were in the area at the time of a crime. That information can provide leads that would not have existed without the cameras. Law enforcement agencies across the country have credited automated license plate readers with assisting investigations involving burglaries, robberies, hit-and-run crashes, kidnappings, and other serious offenses.

Another commonly cited benefit is efficiency. Police departments often have limited personnel and resources. Rather than assigning officers to manually watch entrances and exits to neighborhoods or commercial areas, an automated camera system can continuously monitor vehicle traffic and provide searchable information when an investigation requires it. Supporters argue that this allows officers to spend more time responding to calls and engaging with the community instead of performing routine surveillance.

Finally, many residents simply believe the cameras make their communities safer. Even if the cameras do not prevent every crime, some people view them as a deterrent. The belief that stolen vehicles or getaway cars can be quickly identified may discourage at least some criminal activity. For neighborhoods experiencing repeated vehicle thefts or property crimes, the promise of faster investigations can be appealing.

These are legitimate arguments, and they deserve to be taken seriously. The debate over Flock cameras is not whether solving crimes is a worthwhile goal—it unquestionably is. The real question is whether the benefits of this technology outweigh the costs to privacy, civil liberties, and the relationship between citizens and their government.

The Other Side of the Coin

The concerns surrounding Flock cameras are not based solely on abstract debates about privacy. They stem from documented cases involving mistaken identifications, misuse by authorized users, and the gradual expansion of surveillance beyond its original purpose. Even supporters of the technology generally agree that a powerful surveillance tool is only as trustworthy as the policies, oversight, and people behind it.

One concern is accuracy. While Flock Safety reports a very high license plate recognition rate, no automated system is perfect. Dirt, weather, damaged plates, unusual fonts, or simple image-processing errors can result in a plate being read incorrectly. In several documented cases around the country, innocent drivers have been stopped at gunpoint, detained, or even arrested after a camera incorrectly matched their vehicle to one connected to a crime (here). Those incidents have resulted in lawsuits alleging violations of constitutional rights and claims that law enforcement relied too heavily on automated alerts without independently verifying the information before taking action.

Perhaps the larger concern is not technological error, but human misuse. Across multiple states, police officers have been accused or convicted of using Flock's database to track former romantic partners, family members, or other individuals for personal reasons rather than legitimate law enforcement purposes. Investigations have uncovered numerous cases where officers allegedly accessed the system without a valid investigative purpose, leading to criminal charges, terminations, or internal discipline (here). These incidents demonstrate that even when a system is functioning exactly as designed, it can still be abused by the people granted access to it.

Civil liberties organizations have also documented what they describe as "mission creep." A tool originally promoted for locating stolen vehicles and solving violent crimes has, in some jurisdictions, been used in investigations involving immigration enforcement, abortion-related investigations, political demonstrations, and other activities far removed from the public's original understanding of how the technology would be used (here). Critics argue that once a comprehensive surveillance network exists, the pressure to use it for additional purposes becomes almost inevitable.

Another concern involves the sheer scale of the data being collected. Every vehicle passing a Flock camera is recorded, regardless of whether the driver is suspected of any crime. Over time, those records can reveal remarkably detailed patterns about a person's life: where they work, where they worship, where they seek medical care, whom they visit, and how they spend their time. While Flock states that it has retention limits and audit logs, privacy advocates argue that collecting location information on millions of innocent people fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and the government.

In one recent case, “Texas authorities searched more than 83,000 automatic license plate readers nationwide to find a woman they said had given herself an abortion.” (here). I have been unable to find any stories where authorities used 83,000 ALPRs to locate a rapist or pedophile.

Finally, critics argue that oversight has struggled to keep pace with the technology. Several communities have questioned whether elected officials and the public fully understood the system's capabilities before approving contracts. Privacy advocates have also accused Flock Safety of making misleading statements about some of those capabilities, leading at least one city to reverse its approval shortly after learning additional facts. Whether one agrees with those criticisms or not, they illustrate why transparency and independent oversight remain central to the debate.

Ultimately, the debate over Flock cameras is not simply about whether they solve crimes. It is about whether society is willing to accept continuous monitoring of ordinary people in exchange for the investigative benefits the technology provides. That question has no easy answer, which is precisely why it deserves careful public discussion before more cameras are installed.

Do Flock Cameras Actually Reduce Crime?

This is perhaps the most important question in the entire debate. Few people dispute that Flock cameras can help investigators identify suspects or recover stolen vehicles after a crime has occurred. The more difficult question is whether installing these cameras actually prevents crime from happening in the first place.

The answer is surprisingly unclear.

Flock Safety and many law enforcement agencies frequently report success stories. Police departments have credited the cameras with recovering stolen vehicles, locating missing persons, identifying suspects, and providing valuable investigative leads that otherwise might never have existed. By those measures, the technology has undoubtedly assisted criminal investigations in many jurisdictions. Flock itself reports that its systems have supported hundreds of thousands of investigations and contributed to thousands of arrests and vehicle recoveries.

However, helping solve crimes and reducing crime are not the same thing.

Independent researchers have struggled to find strong evidence that surveillance cameras consistently reduce overall crime rates. A 40-year meta-analysis of CCTV studies found that cameras generally produce only modest reductions in crime, with the greatest benefits occurring in places such as parking lots and garages where vehicle crimes are common. Even then, the effects varied significantly from one location to another. (here)

Other studies have been even less encouraging. A study examining Milwaukee's police-operated camera network found little evidence that the cameras reduced crime or substantially improved case clearances compared with similar locations without cameras. The researchers concluded that the effectiveness of surveillance cameras depends heavily on how they are deployed and how they are integrated into broader policing strategies.

One reason the evidence is difficult to interpret is that crime is influenced by countless factors. Economic conditions, policing strategies, community involvement, sentencing laws, seasonal trends, and demographic changes can all affect crime rates. If crime falls after cameras are installed, it is often impossible to say with confidence that the cameras caused the decline. Likewise, if crime does not decrease, that does not necessarily mean the cameras had no value. They may still have helped identify offenders or speed up investigations.

This distinction matters because many public discussions unintentionally blur the line between crime reduction and crime investigation. A city may announce that Flock cameras helped make fifty arrests in a year, and that may be entirely true. But those numbers alone do not prove that fewer crimes occurred because the cameras were installed.

Ultimately, the strongest evidence suggests that Flock cameras are best viewed as an investigative tool rather than a proven crime-prevention strategy. They may help police solve crimes more efficiently and recover stolen property more quickly. Whether they significantly deter criminals or reduce crime across an entire community remains an open question, with independent research offering mixed results.

For voters and policymakers, that distinction is critical. If a community is willing to accept widespread vehicle surveillance, it should do so with a clear understanding of what the technology has, and has not, been proven to accomplish.

Now for the fun part. Allow me to editorialize…

I sat through the city’s presentation where the mayor, the Monroe police chief, and William Dotson were all making it clear that they were in favor of this system and even expanding it. For reference, at the time the city had 10 cameras with another 17 cameras installed privately but connected to the MPD. I know that number has gone up since then because my neighborhood has two now (Kevin for HOA president?).

If Dotson gets elected with Ball, Parker, and Petterson, they will immediately vote to approve $7.6 million dollars (spread out over the next 10 years) to expand the Flock program. This is what irresponsible people do with our tax dollars. We will see zero benefit from this. You heard me. Nobody’s life will improve by allowing our money to go towards these cameras. We could have nicer streets, homeless people off these nicer streets, people fed, housing costs lowered, and an overall increase in quality of life IF we elect people who stop wasting our money on this bullshit. The same folks who think that giving the Humane Society $20k is a waste of tax dollars will gladly sign up to spend $7.6m on this nonsense. That's one hell of an effective propaganda campaign. (See Dotson's speech at the 42:50 mark.) Dotson cries foul for giving non-profits more money, but is pretty excited about spending $7.6m to make sure you're acting right. And the folks who follow him will have a bout of cognitive dissonance trying to resolve a candidate claiming lower spending that is about to blow $7.6m on unnecessary equipment that would probably put quite a few officers out of a job.

The same people bitching about taxes and spending, will smile at this expense because they’re being lied to. Your house may or may not get broken into. These cameras will not stop it. They might help catch the guys quicker, but that’s it…quicker. They were already going to get caught, but now instead of a Tuesday arrest, it happened on Sunday.

Compare that to ALL the abuses that you can find. How about the lawsuits that will have to be settled? Oh. And this price tag? Will this equipment not be outdated and obsolete in 10 years? Won’t we have to pay for upgrades in equipment and software?

Finally, how are we not united on this? One of the few issues that we’ve been able to come together on is government overreach. Why do citizens who say “don’t tread on me” think that applies to food stamps and healthcare and not a 24/7 monitoring system tracking our every movement?

Frankly, I thought this would be a slam dunk. Dotson will lose the election because all the conservatives will vote against someone who wants to monitor their actions via an intrusive camera system. I know the progressives around here are against it. Is that what we’ve come to? Conservatives giving up their beliefs in government monitoring just to “own the libs”? That’s what it feels like.

Voters are no longer shooting themselves in the foot. They’re now pointing the gun at their faces.

Let’s unite, stand up together, and tell our entire city council that they can fuck right off with these cameras.

United we stand...