What Can Be Done about Flock Cameras?

Over the last few months, social media has exploded with conservatives becoming alarmed about the government’s use of Flock cameras. Flock cameras are a type of Automated License Plate Reader — a camera placed on public property that runs non-stop surveillance, collecting data on the location of vehicles at specific times. This data collected on innocent citizens, is purportedly used to aid law enforcement if and when needed. However, Flock cameras raise serious concerns about constitutional privacy rights since these license plate reader systems continuously record your movements without a warrant, without probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion

The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The question is, does constant recording of American citizens in public places meet the definition of “unreasonable search”?

“Politicians are doing their best to put out a bunch of meaningless rhetoric about how they will do ‘something’ to ‘regulate’ surveillance cameras,” said GRA Chairman Alex Johnson, “without actually committing to doing anything.” 

According to Deflock.org, there are upwards of 10,000 Flock cameras currently being used in Georgia. For people who know history and understand the constant threat of totalitarianism that has plagued mankind since the first egotistical monarch, Pharaoh, or sultan ever said “off with his head,” Flock cameras are terrifying. Communist dictators of the last century were eager to collect data on law abiding citizens and would have jumped with glee if they had been enabled by Flock technology and AI.

This week Nathaniel Darnell, Field Coordinator for The John Birch Society, and the GRA President, was interviewed on the Tennessee Informer podcast about The John Birch Society’s position on the constitutional right to privacy and the growing concern with Flock cameras. “It’s like 1984!” said Darnell.

He pointed to the numerous instances of abuse by law enforcement. For example, Reason.com reported 20 Georgia officials have been arrested for misuse of Flock cameras.

Many have accessed the data to stalk women. But that’s not all. What about when the technology gets it wrong? There has also been a fair number of false positives that have led to innocent people being wrongfully arrested at gun point, all because a Flock camera misread a license plate.

“In Aurora, Colorado in 2020, a mother and her family, including her 6-year-old daughter, were pulled over at gunpoint and forced to lie face down on hot pavement due to an ALPR error. Police mistakenly flagged their Colorado license plate as matching a completely different vehicle,” reported Deflock.org.

“The incident, captured on video and widely condemned, led to a $1.9 million settlement from the city in 2024.” See CBS News report.

Additional concerns arise when we consider whether local law enforcement offices are automatically sharing their surveillance data with national, three-letter agencies at the federal level. How many government employees have access to it? Wouldn’t more people having access to the data increase the risk for abuse and harassment.

Justifying the Unjustifiable

Some would argue that the concerns with Flock cameras are all justifiable if the use of Flock cameras helped to solve even one crime. It is a reiteration of the old “the end justifies the means” rationale.

But the 4th Amendment exists for a reason.

One of the benefits of 4th Amendment privacy rights is that it slows down justice to ensure innocent people are not harmed during the pursuit of criminals. Innocent law-abiding people should never have to endure the trauma of a guns drawn raid, or feel violated by the search of their home, car or personal effects without a warrant and sufficient reason to suspect them.

The Founding Fathers had a Christian worldview and held that all men — including government officials and law enforcement — are depraved and sinful. They possessed a keen distrust of human civil government and that distrust is why we have the Bill of Rights.

They did not hold to a “catch crime at all costs” view. Rather, they severely limited the power of the state in order to ensure innocent law-abiding individuals are not unnecessarily violated or taken advantage of by the pursuit of justice.

They were gravely concerned about misuse of authority and took precautions to protect against those abuses. If a cop were to follow you around and track all your daily habits, without a warrant, that would be highly inappropriate, and probably considered harassment. Law enforcement should not be allowed to commit crimes themselves under pretense of catching criminals.

The Good News

Flock cameras are not permanent and unalterable. Many cities and counties have cancelled their contracts with Flock, or deactivated their cameras. People are speaking out. In one of the more entertaining examples, a San Diego man dressed as Darth Vader spoke satirically in favor of Flock Cameras and how they benefit “the Empire”.

It is encouraging to see the massive public opposition to this government surveillance network. The fact that the decision to use or not use automated license plate readers rests in the hands of your local government (not Congress or D.C. bureaucrats) makes it far more likely that patriot activists can make a difference and reverse this trend.

How You Can Help

If you are concerned about Flock camera surveillance and potential harassment please talk to your local Sheriff and local government and share with us and your fellow advocates what you have learned.