Flock Safety is Unamerican
The short version: A South Carolina attorney frames Flock Safety's ALPR network as a betrayal of the consent-of-the-governed principle the country was founded on.
Our Take
Attorney Gedney Howe's framing cuts right to the point: this isn't really about catching stolen cars or solving crimes faster. It's about who gets to decide whether an entire town gets watched, logged, and cross-referenced, block by block, without a vote, a referendum, or in many cases even a public hearing. That's the thread connecting a tea tax in 1773 to a camera on a pole in 2024 — consent. Flock's pitch to police departments skips the part where residents get a real say in whether they want their daily movements captured and stored in a database that outlasts any single crime investigation.
We'd add that the "unamerican" label isn't just rhetorical flourish. These systems were sold quietly, often through private vendor contracts and grant funding that bypass the normal budget scrutiny a new surveillance program should get. Many city councils that approved Flock installations never debated retention policies, audit trails, or who else gets access to the data — including other agencies, federal partners, or whoever Flock decides to share with next. That's not a technical detail. That's the whole ballgame.
If a lawyer is willing to call this out as a constitutional problem, it's worth asking what's parked near your own neighborhood. Check our camera map to see what's already watching your streets, and if you want to push back locally, our take-action page has the tools to start that fight at the next council meeting.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of Law Offices of Gedney M. Howe, IV, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.