Law enforcement defends Flock cameras as critics raise privacy concerns

Our Take

Credit to ABC10 for capturing both sides of this fight on camera — literally. When local police start publicly defending a surveillance product instead of quietly renewing the contract, that's a sign the pressure campaigns from residents and advocates are actually landing. The fact that Flock is tweaking how it stores and shares data isn't generosity, it's damage control.

Here's the thing to watch: "changing how data is stored and accessed" is a moving target, not a fix. These systems were built to hoover up every plate that passes a camera, retain it, and make it searchable — often far beyond the original "we're just solving crimes" pitch. Tightening a policy on paper means little if there's no independent audit, no public log of who queried what, and no hard cap on how long your movements sit in a database. Law enforcement defending the tool doesn't answer the core question: why does a network built for a handful of investigations need to track everyone, all the time?

If your town has one of these cameras — and odds are good it does — check our map to see where, and use our take-action resources to push your city council for real transparency before the next "policy update" quietly expands what Flock can do with your data.