Pennsylvania lawmakers debate the need for Flock cameras amid rising anti-surveillance sentiment

Our Take

Credit to CBS 21 News for actually putting this on lawmakers' radar instead of just running another 'crime-fighting tech' puff piece. When state legislators start using words like 'privacy,' 'data sharing,' and 'misuse' in the same breath as Flock Safety, that's a sign the PR gloss is wearing thin. Counties like Cambria, Blair, Centre, and Clearfield didn't hold public votes on whether they wanted a statewide surveillance dragnet — they got sold a subscription service that quietly logs every car that passes a camera, cop or no cop involved.

What's notable here is that Pennsylvania officials are catching up to something our community has been documenting for a while: these systems don't stay local. Data gets pooled, shared across jurisdictions, and sometimes accessed by agencies with no accountability to the people being tracked. That's exactly why we built the map — so residents can see for themselves how many of these cameras are already watching their commute, long before their county commissioners bother to disclose it.

Anti-surveillance sentiment isn't some fringe reaction — it's what happens when people realize a private company is profiting off constant location tracking of ordinary drivers, sold to police departments with little oversight. If you're in Pennsylvania or anywhere else watching this debate unfold, don't wait for lawmakers to catch up on their own. Check take action for ways to push back before this becomes permanent infrastructure nobody remembers approving.