I'm responsible for at least 50 camera additions and edits. I'm also in the FOIA process with a local municipality and have sent letters to others as well. The thing that really makes me angry is that if the police rent Flock cameras, it's considered "police property", but if I rent a car, it's not mine. It's not that I want rental car ownership, it's just that the police
don't own it, and sometimes,
Flock deploys cameras without anyone's knowledge. I was asked by a council member of a local town to explain how they could surveil their community in ways that don't conflict with the 4th amendment (see
Carpenter v. US). I have yet to reply.
My email:
Dear Mayor and the membership of the [Town] Council,
I am writing as a [town] resident to ask that the city immediately discontinue and remove the Flock Safety license plate surveillance cameras now operating in our community.
I want to be clear that this request is not rooted in fear of technology or opposition to public safety. It is rooted in concern for constitutional limits, human consequences, and the responsibility local government has to protect residents from unnecessary and irreversible harm.
By way of context, I am an IT professional with over a decade of hands-on experience working with computer systems, networks, and security, and I hold a degree in computer forensics and digital investigations. My professional background involves evaluating systems not just for functionality, but for risk, misuse potential, and failure modes. The concerns I am raising come from that perspective as much as from my role as a citizen.
The Fourth Amendment exists to protect ordinary Americans from unreasonable searches and surveillance conducted without individualized suspicion. Systems like Flock fundamentally change the relationship between citizens and their government by continuously recording and cataloging the movements of everyone who drives through town, regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. Over time, this creates a detailed record of where people live, work, worship, seek medical care, and associate. That level of passive, warrantless tracking is difficult to reconcile with the spirit or intent of the Constitution.
What makes this especially troubling is that this surveillance is being carried out through a third-party vendor whose technology has been shown to be deeply insecure. Independent security research has demonstrated that Flock cameras can be compromised with relative ease. With minimal physical access, it is possible to gain control of a camera, install malware, or intercept data. The devices have exposed hardware interfaces, run outdated and unpatched software, and have been shown to store sensitive image data without encryption. There have also been documented cases of Flock camera feeds being unintentionally exposed on the open internet.
In practical terms, this means the city is operating a system that both tracks residents’ movements and does so using technology that does not meet reasonable security standards. When location data is compromised, the harm is permanent. You cannot undo the exposure of where someone goes, who they visit, or the patterns of their daily life.
This is not an abstract or purely technical issue. It affects real people. A domestic violence survivor, a political dissenter, a religious minority, or simply a law-abiding resident going about their day all bear the risk created by this system. Even if misuse never occurs locally, the existence of the data and the documented weaknesses of the technology mean the risk is always present.
America’s strength has never come from trading liberty for convenience. Our system of government is built on restraint, oversight, and an understanding of human nature—that tools which make intrusion easy will eventually be abused, whether intentionally or through negligence. Local leaders are entrusted with upholding those values, even when doing so requires saying no to technologies that promise easy answers.
For these reasons, I respectfully but firmly ask that the city cease using the Flock camera system, remove the cameras, and ensure that all collected data is deleted. I also ask that any future consideration of surveillance technology occur only with full public transparency, explicit community approval, and clear constitutional and security safeguards.
Discontinuing this program would send a strong message that our town values safety without surrendering privacy, and that it takes seriously its duty to protect both the physical security and civil liberties of its residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will give this matter the careful and principled attention it deserves.
Respectfully,
Li'l Work Truck
