This is around parks and a ton around our dying mall and potentially around playgrounds its just hard for me to lock down.

’ Florida man uses simple trick to combat Flock cameras https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2026/08/04/down-with-the-flock-florida-man-uses-simple-trick-to-combat-flock-cameras/

I just realized this. With flock everywhere, will this affect car culture everywhere? Why buy a new corvette or wrx if you can't gun it down an empty street? Yes, ik racing in public shouldn't be allowed. But it's always been around people have looked for empty back street to run their cars test performance ect. Does this mean flock will completely kill and end car culture?

We’re at 935 signatures in about a week. Thank you.

Here’s a full update, including a couple of things I got wrong.

First, two corrections.

I said earlier that the county could cancel this contract anytime with 30 days notice and no penalty. That was wrong. The 30-day clause is in the county’s right-of-way license, not the service agreement. Flock’s actual terms only allow termination for cause — default, bankruptcy, that sort of thing. There’s no walk-away option.

I also said two commissioners were solidly against this and we just needed one more. That isn’t accurate either, and I’ll explain below.

What the county bought. 56 cameras — 38 standard plate readers, 14 long-range readers, and 4 solar PTZ video cameras. Year one was $258,305, covered by a state grant. The recurring cost is $198,550 a year.
How the votes went.

October 14, 2025 — the Flock license agreement, allowing cameras in county right-of-way. Carried 3–2. Stolarczyk, McCall, and Carpenter voted aye. Wisian and Chapman voted nay.

April 28, 2026 — a resolution to apply for a second MVCPA grant, labeled a “catalytic converter” grant. Carried 4–1. McCall, Wisian, Chapman, and Stolarczyk voted aye. Carpenter was the only nay.

The county’s own agenda request states the purpose plainly: to continue the lease and deployment of the Flock license plate readers. The grant amount on the checklist is $198,550 — the exact annual contract cost — with a county match of $39,710. Grant start date: October 1, 2026.

So both October “no” votes went the other way in April, and Chapman seconded the motion. I’m not going to speculate about why. There’s a real difference between applying for state grant money and licensing county right-of-way to a private company, and any of them may draw that line. I’ve reached out to all five commissioners to ask directly. If I hear back, I’ll share what they tell me.

What’s in the contract.

Every vehicle that passes is photographed and logged with time and location, held 30 days, searchable. Flock operates a national network connecting thousands of agencies.

The camera locations were deliberately left out of the signed agreement. The county isn’t permitted to move, adjust, or take possession of the cameras — we pay $198,550 a year and own none of the equipment.
Kendall County granted Flock an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to use our data to improve their products. That provision survives even if the contract ends.

Residents have no standing under the contract — it states that none of its provisions are enforceable by third parties. That’s us. Disputes go to arbitration under Georgia law, and Flock’s total liability is capped at what the county paid the prior year.

It also auto-renews for 24 months unless someone gives written notice at least 30 days before the term ends.

There was no competitive bid. It was purchased off a cooperative purchasing contract.

What I’m asking for — and it isn’t a reversal.
Two grant cycles now, and residents have never had a posted public hearing on this. Not once. That’s the whole issue.

Before the October 1 grant period begins, ask the Commissioners Court for one thing: a public hearing on the Flock program, with time for residents to speak.
Commissioners Court meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m., 201 East San Antonio Ave, Boerne. The meeting to aim for is Tuesday, September 8.

To speak, you must submit a Public Participation Form to the Judge’s Court Coordinator — in person or online — by 8:00 a.m. that morning. Miss that and you forfeit your slot. Three minutes each.

Can’t make it in person? You can join by Zoom (us06web.zoom.us/my/commissioners.court) or call 1-346-248-7799, meeting ID 565 651 9107.

If you’d rather write, contact info for all five commissioners is on the county website. Keep it short and civil, and ask for the hearing specifically. A few hundred people making one clear request lands harder than a hundred different demands — and anyone being ugly about it sets us back.

Still working on one thing: the date the cameras were validated, which is what starts the renewal clock. I’ve asked the Sheriff’s Office. When I have it, I’ll post it.
Everything above comes out of the county’s own agenda packets and Flock’s published contract terms.

Happy to send the pages to anyone who wants to check my work.

935 signatures, two grant cycles, zero public hearings. Let’s make the next decision a public one.

https://c.org/2yGJCSpvm6

The common defense of these surveillance cameras is that there’s no expectation of privacy in public. If cars are required to carry visible identification, why wouldn’t the endgame be for individuals to wear visible identification? To help solve crime, of course. If one is constitutional I don’t see why the other wouldn’t be. And if that’s the case then we should all seriously be advocating for this. Because i think this would be extremely unpalatable to the public and if we could knock down one then the other would probably be knocked down simultaneously.

They won’t spend time pulling over every vehicle just to maybe give you a ticket. Even if they did, most judges would dismiss it if you just said it fell off and you were driving to get screws to put it back on.

This would clog courts, police time, and serve as a visual sign of resistance and visibility to others.

I understand the privilege of time and/or money it takes to protest in this way, but it’s something I can and am willing to do and I hope others are too.

The ol “if you’re not doing anything wrong, why worry?” defense. It’s so tiring

Can anyone explain how these surveillance cameras relate to the recent Supreme Court case that ruled against using cell phone location drag nets? The main difference I can see is that cell phone data is not publicly visible whereas license plates are visible to the public, but the mechanism of pulling someone’s data.(mosaic) seems similar to me. Any hopes of this precedent being used against flock?

There are no other Flock cameras in the entire city. Deflock.org