Kentucky city drops Flock camera program

Our Take

Credit to Local 12 for covering this one, because it's the story that surveillance vendors don't want local news to run: a city council that listened to constituents instead of a sales pitch. Fort Mitchell residents raised the same concerns we hear over and over — that a network of cameras logging every car's movements, timestamps, and location history is a mass surveillance system first and a "crime-solving tool" second. The council apparently agreed enough to vote out the contract entirely, which is a rare reversal in an industry that usually only grows once it's installed.

What makes Fort Mitchell notable isn't the size of the city — it's the precedent. Flock's whole business model depends on quiet, uncontested renewals and city officials who never look past the marketing deck. When a community actually asks who can access this data, how long it's stored, and whether it's shared with other agencies or federal databases, the answers tend to get uncomfortable fast. That's exactly the kind of scrutiny every city council with a Flock contract should be facing before renewal, not after residents finally notice the cameras on their corner.

If you want to see whether your own town is already wired up, check our camera map, and if you'd rather not wait for a scandal to force the issue, our take-action page has the tools to get this conversation in front of your own council before the contract auto-renews.