01 / CAPTURE
One drive-by looks small.
A plate. A vehicle. A time. A place. Flock says its license-plate readers can also record objective vehicle details such as make, color, body type, and distinguishing features.
Statement against Flock surveillance
My daily life
isn't a lead.
Keep scrolling
01 / CAPTURE
A plate. A vehicle. A time. A place. Flock says its license-plate readers can also record objective vehicle details such as make, color, body type, and distinguishing features.
02 / CONNECT
Put enough point-in-time observations together and they stop feeling like snapshots. They begin to describe routines, relationships, worship, healthcare, protest, and home.
03 / SEARCH
Flock describes its system as searchable, vehicle-centric data with a default 30-day retention period. The concern is not only what one camera sees. It is what a connected system can reconstruct.
The constitutional argument
I believe suspicionless, networked tracking flips that promise upside down: collect everyone's movements now, decide who matters later.
Seeing a car on one public street is not the same as cheaply compiling a searchable record across time and place.
The Supreme Court has recognized a privacy interest in the whole of a person's physical movements and in sensitive location histories.
A warrant forces the government to identify a person, a reason, and a limited search before reaching into a history of movement.
How I feel
“I should not have to surrender a searchable history of my movements just to drive on a public road.”
Public safety should be specific, accountable, and based on suspicion—not built on a permanent record of everyone.
Turn concern into a public record
Ask your city, county, campus, or HOA whether it operates or shares access to an ALPR network.
Push for warrants, short retention, no immigration sharing, public audit logs, and penalties for misuse.
Read the statement at a public meeting. Ask elected officials to vote in public—not let surveillance arrive by default.