Flock Cameras Are Everywhere: What Makes Them So Dangerous?
Soon enough, a Flock camera will be on top of your neighbor’s house, looking into your yard, watching your family, your dog, your friends. Oh, wait, you totally think I’m talking about a new home surveillance device. Nope. Some type of ring doorbell? Not quite. Traffic cameras? Closer! It’s an all-inclusive device which can identify your car’s make, model, color, license plate, bumper stickers, direction, and destination! Does that not sound like the next great American innovation?
To me, it sounds equal parts concerning, invasive, and violating. But of course that’s an irrational thought because it’s a perfectly simple way for police officers to catch criminals, and who wouldn’t want to support that? Oh, and do everyone a favor and ignore the fact that it utilizes artificial intelligence and is owned by private companies. Sounds good?
Truthfully, I see a lot of parallels to the Patriot Act of 2001, which expanded the government’s surveillance, law enforcement, and intelligence-gathering capabilities after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The act showed American citizens that the federal government was willing to potentially invade the privacy of some to achieve national safety goals. Many cited fourth amendment violations in its wake. In the years since the Patriot Act, a new type of surveillance company has emerged: Flock Safety. This company is placing cameras that can identify everything about each car that passes in front of their lenses within seconds. In turn, they can supply the footage to local law enforcement to assist with important investigations, as well as any other entity who wishes to use and abuse this tracking information. This is all done without the consent of the drivers, as IPVM notes.
If your skin isn’t already crawling, let me guide you through another major issue with Flock cameras. People using the data on the collective Flock Safety database can look up specific license plate numbers to find suspects’ vehicles. They can also track exes, family members, and friends in an attempt to upend their lives. When incidents like this occur, you would think the powerful Flock Safety Audit system would ensure the safety of the general public, right? Wrong. Investigative reporting has tied the system to many documented misuse cases, primarily by law enforcement. In August of 2026, a Kentucky police officer was arrested after allegedly searching for his ex-girlfriend upwards of 2000 times on the database! Cybernews documented 46 cases of Flock’s information being abused across the country. Indeed, after these incidents occurred, Flock Safety has employed a brand new audit system, hoping to improve on the poor performance of its previous model, but I have my doubts.
Don’t get me wrong, law enforcement should be able to have all the resources necessary to properly arrest criminals. Supporters in Wichita’s 90-day pilot have noted the effectiveness of Flock cameras with an increase in vehicle recovery from auto theft incidents—those are real wins for society. We just need to make sure they’re used properly. Plus, my issue is hardly with the police using cameras—traffic cameras existed long before I was born—it is that private institutions are allowed to own, operate, manipulate, and share these cameras and the information they collect with anyone or anything. Flock Safety’s CEO, Garrett Langley, falsely claimed in August of 2026 that the company did not have federal contracts, such as agreements with ICE, the department of defense, and other government entities. So did Flock’s Chief Legal Officer, Dan Haley, calling concerns “misinformation.” Reports from 404 Media and IPVM contradicted those statements. They have also facilitated erroneous narratives about the amount of data they collect and how long it exists in their database for. For example, Wausau police in Wisconsin told the city council that their data only lasts for 30 days, while one sheriff’s office said that Flock built a separate aggregate database from the one provided to them which lasted for five years. These misleading statements both damage the future credibility of Flock Safety and make current statements untrustworthy.
Surveillance, done primarily by private companies, is a dangerous part of our society. Your gut reaction is correct—it is an invasion of privacy. You’ll notice that much of the rationale traces its roots back to the Patriot Act—these cameras are presented as a public service: yet another way for your local community to be made safer. While many police forces may use the new information to improve their methods of catching criminals, this private company is spying on you. They want your information, without asking for your consent to have it. They are already watching you, your family, and your friends. Flock Safety earns more profit with each camera they install, no matter who they have to step on to get it. And yes, that most definitely includes you.
Seriously though, no need to worry.
