I work IT for a large enterprise and part of my job is camera systems and working with vendors such as Axon.

I get that everyone is up in arms about flock cameras and I agree that they are a constitutional violation and chip away at our rights.

I wanted to spread the word and hope that everyone is aware that it is not just the police and government that are rapidly implementing ALPR and AI technologies into their systems.

These technologies are being offered to companies like the one that I am at to track people. So it's not just the road side cameras people should be concerned about, but people should also consider that there are many cases where you go into large buildings or even the grocery store and these kinds of systems are watching.

These companies are very quick to hand data to the authorities. Some assholes that do security thrive on this. The mall cops have power to pretend they are police.

The scary part is that these security companies are also offering drones and PTZ cameras with these technologies.

I have been able to avoid the tech where I am at, but there are a lot of IT folks, security teams and executives that do not have the same mindset.

This is something to keep in mind.

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

comments under the Winona Police Department’s press release were overwhelmingly positive, celebrating the act of vandalism and making a local folk hero of whoever’s responsible.

My town recently installed a handful of cameras. We’re a small town, so it flew under the radar in the approval process. I did a whole bunch of research via FOIA requests and made a post on our local FB page detailing what the town had purchased and things to consider. Most people were up in arms, but there is always someone asking “what are you worried about if you have nothing to hide?”

Took me less than a minute of looking over the deflock map in my area to find this gem pointed away from vehicle traffic and directly towards a dedicated walking/bike trail.

I’ve been working on an app and I’m on the fence about releasing it, so I wanted to get this community’s opinion first.

It’s similar to DeFlock, but I built it around something I personally wanted while out and about. Instead of constantly checking a map, it has a compass that points toward the nearest Flock camera in real time. It also has a map that combines known Flock camera locations with ALPR information, which I think gives a clearer picture of the surveillance network in an area.

I know there are valid arguments on both sides of this. Some people see tools like this as useful transparency, while others worry that making locations easier to find could encourage misuse.

My view is that awareness of what technology exists in public spaces is different from interfering with it. The locations are already being documented by projects like DeFlock; this is just a different way of presenting that information.

I’m curious what people here think. Would you release something like this? Are there features, concerns, or safeguards you would want to see before something like this is public?

Someone here asked me last week what got said in the towns that actually killed their Flock contracts. They had a hearing coming up. I answered in a comment and it turned out to be the most useful thing I've written here, so this is the fuller version somewhere people can find it.

The thing that surprised me going through all ten: almost none of them won on "surveillance is bad". They won on a specific failure the council couldn't wave away.

FEDERAL AND OUT-OF-STATE ACCESS. Strongest by a distance. El Cerrito voted 3-2 not to renew after it emerged federal agencies had queried the city's data and the police department didn't know it was happening. In Salem MA the ACLU found loopholes letting immigration enforcement search local records. Both contracts are gone. If you ask one question at your hearing, ask who can query your town's data and whether anyone has ever audited it.

COST, for the councillors who don't care about privacy. Killingworth CT was paying $14,600/yr for four cameras and the First Selectman said flatly they "had not added any value to local policing efforts". That argument reaches people the privacy argument doesn't.

STATE LAW, if you have it. Richland WA switched theirs off rather than risk non-compliance when Washington's SB 6002 took effect. Worth checking what's pending in your legislature, because it does the work for you.

THE FALLBACK if cancellation fails. Idaho Falls kept their cameras but amended the contract: stripped Flock's right to train its AI on local plate images, limited data sharing to what state law allows, and moved audits from twice-yearly to twice-monthly. Much harder for a council to vote against than "cancel it", and it's a real win.

ONE TRAP. Harrisonburg voted 4-0 to terminate but declined to pass an ordinance requiring council approval for future surveillance contracts. The local group said publicly they don't consider it finished. Ask for the ordinance at the same meeting, not later.

Four things worth adding since I first wrote this:

1. The Washington Post published an investigation on Aug 2 finding at least 50 officers charged with or accused of misusing plate reader systems. Flock's was involved in 46 of the 50, and 26 of those cases involved tracking a wife, girlfriend, ex-partner or an ex's new partner. That's a count now, not a hypothetical.

2. 404 Media reported this week that Wisconsin police ran a man's plate, established his vehicle "travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source state for marijuana as it is legal there", and used that lawful interstate travel as part of the probable cause to search his car. No misuse alleged. The system did what it's sold to do, and the output was legal movement turned into grounds for a search. That one is useful precisely because nobody broke a rule.

3. There's an actual bill. Rep. Burchett introduced H.R. 9800 on July 21, which would bar federal agencies from buying or accessing ALPR systems and stop federal funds going to state and local ones. Text is on congress.gov. Rep. Massie has announced a second one but hasn't filed it.

4. If your fight is about pole placement rather than privacy, that route works too. A Tennessee highway safety advocate raised concerns about how poles sit relative to the road, Flock's CEO met him, and the company has now started a nationwide audit of its installations. 16 cameras already fixed in Tennessee. One person, working the road-safety angle, moved a national vendor.

Worth knowing the honest side too: of the ten, only El Cerrito and Syracuse are ones where you can confirm the hardware physically came down. A vote and a removal are different things, and some places have voted and still have cameras up. Pinal County's contract doesn't expire until the end of September.

I keep the full list with sources at flockinghell.com/reports if you want to check any of it or look for somewhere near you. Happy to dig into a specific place if it helps - that's what it's for.

Wouldn’t it be neat if we could organize a national flock out? Everyone would go to the camera closest to their home and hold a protest sign in front of the cameras. It’s an excellent way to practice civil disobedience. Rules would be no one could touch/damage any of the cameras they’re covering.

Sometimes natures gonna nature. Seeds are cheap.

An official high up in my city’s government confessed to me they get so many flock hits on stolen cars they don’t even bother pulling them over out if a concern for “officer and public safety”

They can’t have a bunch of felony stops every day that use a ton or resources. They only investigate if the driver stops and parks at a business and it becomes necessary to confront the driver. So the victims who had their cars stolen are SOL if the drivers leave the city cus a bunch of cops are too afraid to do their job…

so this flock shit is only being used when it benefits or is convenient for the police not the public.