Editorial of September 3, 2026
What the Flock?!
Why are communities and even entire states banning Flock cameras? After all, closed-circuit television and video cameras have been used for decades in businesses, homes, and on public streets for surveillance and to prevent criminal activity. True crime aficionados will point out that video camera footage has helped law enforcement officials successfully track killers like Bryan Kohberger and Israel Keyes and bring them to justice. Doorbell cameras are everywhere, used for everything from theft deterrence to package tracking to remote communication. So wherein lies the rub?
According to an August 30 NewsNation article written by Rob Taub, “criticism of Flock cameras continues to fuel debate across the country as communities weigh whether automated license plate readers are valuable public safety tools or an invasion of privacy.” Flock Safety, the company that manufactures and sells this controversial technology, argues that their cameras are “better tools for safer communities” that help “deter crime, respond to emergencies, and investigate safety incidents.” But, according to DeFlock, an anti-surveillance group, more than 90 cities have chosen to reject or remove Flock license plate reader systems. In fact, just this week the Florida Department of Transportation banned Flock cameras and other ALPRs from all state highway rights-of-way and officially revoked all active permits for such equipment on state lands.
In his article, Taub cites a “Washington Post” investigation that revealed “more than 50 law enforcement officers have been accused, charged or convicted of misusing automatic license plate reader systems for unauthorized purposes, including tracking former romantic partners.”
Flock cameras are affixed on poles in high traffic areas. Instead of recording a video, they snap a photo when a vehicle passes, recording basic information such as the car’s make, model, color and unique features. The plates are then compared against lists like the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center, which connects law enforcement officials across the United States and enables them to instantly check for stolen vehicles, for instance.
The Flock Safety website contends that protecting communities also means protecting civil liberties, but opponents argue that the Flock cameras are a form of mass surveillance with serious privacy risks, creating permanent logs of people not suspected of any crime. No warrants or probable cause are necessary for law enforcement to track vehicles, officer misconduct has been identified as a real concern, and there is a worry that this equipment might be used for such actions as immigration tracking. Error rates are also high, raising further red flags.
In his article, Taub points out that some law enforcement officials are pushing back on objections to the Flock camera technology. One Kentucky police chief argued that Flock cameras have been used by his department to solve homicide cases, locate missing people and recover stolen vehicles. Ironically, that same police chief “continues to use the system even after one of its officers was arrested for allegedly using department access to track his ex-girlfriend more than 2,000 times, including after she obtained an order of protection against him.”
To battle what the Glynn County Police Department in Georgia terms “some misinformation,” the GCPD has launched a “Flock Transparency Portal,” making statistics and other data available to concerned citizens. “There are rules and laws that govern Glynn County’s use of the data gathered by Flock cameras. If someone misuses the data, it’s not just a policy violation. It’s a crime,” GCPD officials said in an August 12 Facebook post.
In past weeks, speaking of Facebook, Oneontans have identified the locations of Flock cameras in and around the city and expressed myriad concerns.
“This is a fundamental violation of privacy and it is dystopic,” one individual posted. “Furthermore, it’s just more completely unnecessary and harmful AI use. It’s mass surveillance and data that can be accessed federally. ICE has already kidnapped people from our community…and they were here again today. We don’t need to give them any more opportunities. Thankfully, many communities have already realized just how dangerous Flock is, and petitioned their local governments to end the Flock contract.”
Another post read, “I was driving down Chestnut St. in Oneonta today, right past Valleyview Elementary, and I spotted it. A Flock camera. Hidden in plain sight. Black pole. Solar panel on top. Two little black boxes staring at both lanes of traffic—pointed right at the school drop-off/parent pickup lane. No public notice. No village board meeting. No vote. Just bolted up there last week like we wouldn’t notice. Why there? Of all places? Not at the police station. Not at a high-crime area. At an elementary school where our kids get dropped off every morning.”
Someone else pointed out that the City of Oneonta Common Council formally adopted a resolution at its June 3, 2025 meeting to install license plate reader equipment within the geographical jurisdiction of the City of Oneonta and the State of New York within the state right of way, “on or along NYS Route 23 (Lettis Highway).”
Yet another concerned citizen urged folks to contact Common Council members to let them know AI surveillance in Oneonta is not wanted, calling for a limit to the scope of license plate readers, the prohibition of AI tracking software, restricted data sharing and access, and transparency. Someone else commented, “Big Brother is watching.”
So that’s the automated license plate reader controversy in a nutshell. Whether overblown or not, only time will tell. In the meantime, we say “flock no” to Flock cameras. Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should.
