Flock Safety Tried to Sell Sheboygan Its Own Camera Data — Without Telling the City It Was Collectin

Our Take

Credit to Milwaukee Mainstay for digging into this one, because if the reporting holds up, it's a textbook example of why we keep hammering on data ownership clauses in these ALPR contracts. A city pays for a surveillance network, Flock Safety's cameras quietly harvest speed and movement data off the back of that network, and then the vendor turns around and offers to sell that same data back to the city that generated it in the first place. That's not a partnership. That's a business model built on information asymmetry, and the public is the one footing the bill twice.

This is exactly the pattern we've flagged over and over: cities sign up for "public safety" cameras without ever nailing down who actually owns the data those cameras produce, how long it's kept, or what else the vendor can do with it on the side. Sheboygan apparently didn't even know this collection was happening — which means the city council and residents had zero chance to weigh in on it before the fact. When the vendor knows more about what's happening on your streets than your own elected officials do, something has gone badly wrong with the oversight process.

If you live somewhere with Flock cameras already installed, or your city is being pitched on them, this is the moment to start asking hard questions in writing: what data is collected, who can buy or access it, and what's the retention policy. Check our camera map to see what's already watching your area, and head to take action for templates and steps to push your local government for real transparency before the next contract gets signed.