To: Municipal governments deploying Flock cameras

Editor's note: It is time to deflock. Flock is fornicating with Palantir. Flock cameras are solar-powered automated license plate reader systems manufactured by Flock Safety. These cameras automatically photograph passing vehicles, capture license plate numbers, and record vehicle details such as make, model, color, and distinguishing features along with the precise time and GPS location. The data is uploaded to a centralized cloud database that law enforcement agencies can search. Matches to stolen vehicles, Amber Alerts, or other watchlists generate real-time alerts. The company typically retains data for about 30 days. Newer models also include video recording and AI capabilities for more advanced searches. While supporters credit the cameras with helping solve crimes and recover stolen vehicles, critics argue they create a mass surveillance network that tracks everyday movements and raises significant privacy concerns. See Hold Corona's Surveillance to the Standard We Already Have.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." ~ Tacitus (c. 56–120 AD)

Critics strongly object to Flock cameras because a private for-profit company, Flock Safety, collects, stores, and controls vast amounts of sensitive vehicle movement data in its centralized cloud database. Instead of public agencies directly managing the surveillance, communities effectively outsource mass data collection to a corporation that profits from expanding its nationwide network. Flock's standard contracts often grant the company broad rights to share or disclose this data for "investigative purposes," enabling easy access by other law enforcement agencies across the country and federal entities like ICE, even when local departments try to limit sharing.

Privacy advocates from the ACLU and EFF argue this setup undermines democratic accountability, bypasses warrant requirements, and creates an unaccountable surveillance infrastructure that tracks everyday movements of millions of innocent drivers. Concerns include risks of data breaches, misuse by insiders (including stalking or political targeting), commercialization through data brokers, and the erosion of privacy rights as a private entity builds a permanent record of public travel patterns with minimal oversight.

This private control turns routine driving into a surveilled activity feeding a powerful, profit-driven system that expands far beyond its original crime-fighting claims.

The ultimate purpose of Flock cameras is revenue generation for a private, venture-backed corporation, not genuine public safety. Flock Safety operates a lucrative "safety-as-a-service" subscription model, charging police departments, HOAs, and businesses roughly $2,400–$2,500 per camera annually plus installation fees. This has propelled the company to over $300 million in annual recurring revenue and a multi-billion-dollar valuation, fueled by massive venture capital and relentless network expansion.

By owning the cameras, controlling the centralized cloud database, and profiting from every scan and search, Flock turns everyday driving into a monetized data stream that benefits shareholders far more than it delivers proportional crime reductions for communities. Critics rightly see this as surveillance capitalism dressed up as law enforcement, a profit-driven system that prioritizes growth, recurring subscriptions, and data access over privacy, accountability, or actual results.

The high cost of Flock cameras does not justify the modest and often overstated results they deliver. Communities and police departments pay roughly $2,400–$2,500 per camera annually (plus installation), locking in recurring subscription fees that quickly add up to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per jurisdiction for meaningful coverage. You the tax payer are paying for your own private data collection and surveillance. 

While Flock touts impressive clearance rate improvements and claims its network helps solve hundreds of thousands of crimes yearly, independent research shows mixed outcomes: it is difficult to establish clear causal links between the cameras and sustained crime reductions, with benefits often limited to specific property crimes near camera locations rather than broad public safety gains.

Taxpayers foot the bill for an expensive private surveillance network whose primary beneficiary is Flock Safety’s multi-billion-dollar valuation and recurring revenue model, while delivering questionable return on investment amid serious privacy trade-offs and unproven long-term impact on overall crime. Many cities are rightly questioning whether this ongoing expense truly makes residents safer or simply enriches a surveillance company.

The best way to deal with Flock cameras is through legal avoidance and civic action rather than illegal tampering which can lead to criminal charges. Drivers can use crowd-sourced mapping tools such as DeFlock.me and FlockHopper to identify camera locations and plan alternative routes that minimize exposure. For decommissioning the systems communities should attend city council meetings organize opposition push for contract termination and file public records requests to increase transparency on data practices. Several cities have already canceled Flock contracts leading to camera removal due to privacy and cost concerns. Supporting legislation that restricts automated license plate readers and partnering with groups like the ACLU and EFF provides the most effective path to accountability without risking legal consequences.
________


"We're just trying to keep you safe." How many times have we heard that excuse?