GoKawiilFlock Safety markets AI surveillance that goes far beyond reading license plates; color, bumper stickers, dents, and other features are used to build databases and identify movement patterns. These systems are spreading rapidly, often without oversight, and are accessible to police without a warrant. They raise serious privacy and legal concerns, and contribute to a nationwide trend toward mass surveillance. While this and other systems like it claim to reduce crime, there is little evidence to support that claim - and significant risk of abuse. Real public safety comes from investing in communities, not stalking them.
How Widespread Are These Cameras? Understanding what Flock cameras are leads to a natural question: how common are they in our communities? The crowdsourced map made available on DeFlock.me currently shows roughly half of the >100,000 Flock AI cameras nationwide. Here are examples from three major cities showing how pervasive this surveillance has become: These systems are expanding rapidly, often with little public debate or oversight. The Atlas of Surveillance, maintained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has documented over 3,000 law enforcement and government agencies using Flock products as of 2025 - a number growing monthly. See also:
Fox 6 Milwaukee: "Mapping Flock Cameras",
Colorado Flock Camera Locations
Why Privacy Matters The Fourth Amendment was written in response to the British Crown's "general warrants" - broad authorizations to search anyone, anywhere, anytime. Mass surveillance revives that threat in digital form. Simply moving freely in public should not require that you be profiled and scrutinized.
It is important to point out that the courts have repeatedly ruled so-called "dragnet warrants," often using cell phone GPS locations, unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. But Flock’s status as a private company means it can collect and sell data with fewer restrictions, exploiting a legal gray zone which courts have yet to fully address. "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" is a tempting thought - until someone misuses your information. Privacy isn't about hiding wrongdoing. It's about autonomy, dignity, and the ability to live free from unjust scrutiny. "Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." - Edward Snowden As one observer put it: "While today they are no threat to me...circumstances change, leadership changes, laws change. When you really boil this down, what is this nationwide system? What did Flock really make? It's a weapon. A silent weapon. Right now it targets what many would agree are criminals. But with the flip of a switch this system can be used to target or oppress anybody the people in power decide is a threat."
Civil Liberties at Risk There's a broader constitutional issue at stake. We are fast approaching a world in which going about one's business in public means being entered into a law enforcement database. Automated license plate readers collect location data on millions of people with no suspicion of wrongdoing, creating vast databases of where we go and when.
Flock cameras and similar surveillance tools raise serious Fourth Amendment concerns by enabling broad, warrantless tracking of people's movements. In 2024, a trial court held that the Flock network functioned as a "dragnet over the entire city." The judge in the case equated it to placing GPS trackers on every vehicle - a practice that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled requires a warrant (Virginia Mercury, The Virginian Pilot). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warns that automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) are becoming tools for routine mass location tracking and surveillance, with too few rules governing their use. These systems can collect and store data on millions of innocent drivers, creating detailed records of people's movements without their knowledge or consent. (ACLU) Legal scholars have highlighted the broader implications of such surveillance. Neil Richards, writing in the Harvard Law Review, emphasizes that surveillance can chill the exercise of civil liberties, particularly intellectual privacy, and increase the risk of blackmail, coercion, and discrimination. (Harvard Law Review)
Flock's data further enables already biased enforcement. In Oak Park, Illinois, 84% of drivers stopped using Flock camera alerts were Black - despite the town being only 21% Black. (Freedom to Thrive). See also:
ACLU on Unaccountable Surveillance Tech
... continue reading