1. Mass Surveillance & Privacy Violations
Flock cameras do more than record license plates—they generate AI‑interpreted behavioral profiles that can expose highly sensitive personal information, including:
- Religious attendance patterns
- Medical appointments
- Political activism
- Sexual orientation
- Other deeply personal habits
The company has announced it is rolling out a new feature to listen via microphones for “human distress” by capturing voices in public places.
This data is collected without your knowledge or consent, creating a comprehensive surveillance profile of innocent people.
There is no way to opt out; every person is automatically monitored.
2. Lack of Oversight & No Warrant Requirement
- Law enforcement agencies can access ALPR data without a warrant, meaning your movements can be tracked at any time.
- Even when departments claim to have internal policies limiting access, no meaningful accountability mechanism exists to enforce them. This is why a Judge normally determines if there is probable cause to surveil you.
- North Carolina law requires ALPR access to be for a “valid law enforcement purpose,” but still does not require a warrant, leaving room for widespread abuse.
- Data collected has been shared in violation of state law in other states.
- It is alleged that once Flock AI “scrapes” the data they have it for their purposes even while deleting the main original source.
3. Documented Abuse & Misuse
Flock and ALPR systems have already reportedly been misused across the country:
- Flock exposed its AI powered cameras to the internet sometimes without any username or password and children were watched over the internet in parks, people’s cars were tracked. The data breach allowed users to view and modify – even delete – police video feeds.
- A Kansas police chief used ALPR systems over 160 times to stalk his ex‑wife.
- A Texas sheriff’s office searched data from more than 83,000 ALPR cameras to track down a woman suspected of self‑managing an abortion.
- ALPR data has been used to fuel mass deportation efforts, including unlawful data‑sharing with ICE.
- 71 California police agencies illegally shared ALPR data with out‑of‑state law enforcement despite state prohibitions.
4. Error‑Prone Technology Leading to Harm
ALPR misidentifications have caused:
- Wrongful arrests
- Families held at gunpoint
- Vehicles wrongly flagged as stolen
These errors show that “just trust the system” is not a reasonable position when lives and safety are at stake.
5. Constitutional & Legal Concerns
- The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Jones held that attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle requires a warrant.
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Carpenter v. U.S. held that the government’s acquistion of Carpenter’s cell cite records without a warrant was unconstitutional. It acknowledges that detailed location records provide an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not just physical location but also associations and habits. The decision explicitly acknowledges that modern technology demands a reevaluation of privacy expectations, as cell phones are continuously tracking users without active voluntary participation, distinguishing them from traditional business records.
- Flock’s network of cameras achieves the same level of tracking—constant, real‑time monitoring of your movements—without any warrant at all.
- The Supreme Court has acknowledged that legislatures must act to protect citizens from modern technologies capable of unprecedented surveillance.
- ALPR networks placed throughout cities like Wilmington effectively create a real‑time government tracking grid, a scenario the Constitution was meant to guard against.
- It allows law enforcement to understand your patterns of life, what time you leave for work, where you go to lunch, what time you come home, etc.
- Proponents argue that what you do in public is public but that case law is based on isolated incidents of one camera or one audio source in one location. These Flock cameras which are being deployed in a ubiquitous manner have the ability to monitor us real time nearly everywhere.
6. Local Governments Rejecting Flock
- Some municipalities have cut ties with Flock after discovering serious privacy and policy concerns.
- Orange County, NC, eliminated its system.
- Hillsborough canceled its contract after learning that Flock can override local data‑sharing policies and independently share resident data with third parties, endangering community privacy.
- Communities in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and New York have cut ties with Flock
7. Financial Waste for Taxpayers
- Taxpayers are funding a system that allows the government to surveil them, often with little evidence of meaningful benefit.
- Paying for mass surveillance—especially one prone to errors, abuses, and privacy violations—makes little fiscal or ethical sense.
8. Why Everyone Should Care
- Mass surveillance doesn’t just affect people suspected of wrongdoing; it affects everyone, all the time.
- Government tracking of daily movement is fundamentally at odds with American values of liberty and privacy.
- ALPR data has already been reportedly used to monitor issues related to:
- Gun ownership
- Cannabis use
- Reproductive rights
- Immigration
- Once surveillance infrastructure is in place, its use inevitably expands to new purposes.
9. Community Action Steps
- Sign the petition opposing Flock and similar ALPR networks.
- Talk to neighbors & community organizations about the privacy implications.
- Demand transparency and accountable oversight from local and county officials.
- Attend city council and county commission meetings to advocate for removal of surveillance programs.
- Remember: Privacy is not a luxury—it’s a right.