The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

‘You Will Not Speak on Flock Tonight’: County Commissioner Refuses to Let Residents Opposing Flock Speak at Meeting#Flock


‘You Will Not Speak on Flock Tonight’: County Commissioner Refuses to Let Residents Opposing Flock Speak at Meeting


A County Commissioner in North Carolina refused to let dozens of residents speak opposing Flock surveillance at a public meeting this week, instead forcing the group to designate one single spokesperson.

“How many people are here for public comment dealing with license plate readers AKA Flock?,” Michael Garrison, the chairman of the Madison County Board of Commissioners began the public meeting by saying. Nearly everyone in the audience’s hand went up. “Probably most everybody. Per our county policy, I’m going to respectfully ask that you guys take a few minutes to converse with each other, designate one person to speak … we’ll move forward with only one person, whoever that happens to be.”

“What? No. We all want to speak on this,” someone in the crowd said; others can be heard trying to object as well.

“You will not speak on Flock tonight,” he responds. “One person designated. You can pick that person … if I gave everyone three minutes to say the same thing, which is opposition to Flock, we’d never get done … I’ve spoken. I’m not debating this. I am taking advantage of our policy as it is written to streamline this process, you can either do it or not.”

“You’re in a room full of people who care!,” a person in the crowd says.

“We’re not going to engage in this back-and-forth conversation,” he responds. “We’re going to allow one person. Pick a person or not.”


0:00
/1:50

The Madison County Sheriff’s Office has been using Flock’s automated license plate readers, which scan and analyze the time and location of cars as they drive by, since at least March, according to a Facebook post by the Sheriff’s Office. Records compiled by HaveIBeenFlocked.com based on public records requests show that the Sheriff’s Office searches Flock hundreds of times per month. Over the last year, citizen privacy groups have successfully pressured their local governments into ending contracts with Flock. But in some cities and municipalities, residents feel like their concerns have been ignored.

“The Sheriff Office claims they are only using this technology for serious crimes, yet published audit logs tell a different story,” a website called Madison for Privacy says. “Madison County has searched the nationwide database over 1,200 times over just a 60 day period. In a county over only 20,000 residents, its hard to understand what could warrant this many searches.”
youtube.com/embed/PSVe8H88jCI?…
Members of the audience and several of the commissioners then argued back and forth. The commissioners said that the citizens constituted a “group” who all had the same position, and therefore could only select one representative to speak for seven minutes, which the board said was longer than the three minutes each person would normally be allowed to speak for. Residents argued that they were not a “group” but were there to give different perspectives on the issue and that they were concerned about the surveillance as specific individuals: “I’m not here as a group, I’m an individual,” one person says.

“I’m not here to argue with you,” a commissioner responds.

“So you’re going to decide to not listen to your citizens, that’s what you’re saying,” a woman in the crowd says.

“We’re going to follow the policy,” the commissioner responds.

“Can we request that there be a special meeting,” about Flock, a resident says.

“If you want a special meeting, you go back to the 250 years that the sheriff has been the elected official in the state of North Carolina and you have that meeting with him. This board, we don’t own Flock cameras, I’ve emailed some of you this. We don’t pay for Flock cameras. We don’t operate Flock cameras. We have no interest in Flock camera or Flock camera discussion. That’s your elected sheriff. So if you want to have a meeting with the person that’s involved with that, then you’ll have a meeting with [him], not with us that’s a legislative body. We don’t control the sheriff’s budget. We give him X number of dollars, he does with it what he wishes. I’m not having this discussion. Either you select a person or not.”

One of the residents suggests that the board of commissioners could pass an ordinance about Flock cameras; he is cut off by Garrison, who says again that the residents can pick a person to speak or not. Eventually, the residents do select one representative, who was allowed to speak for seven minutes.

Garrison’s argument is that the Board of Commissioners gives the Sheriff’s Office a budget, and that the Sheriff can spend the money on whatever it wants to. He suggested that the board therefore does not have oversight of what surveillance technology police are buying or what they are using it for. This fact highlights a problem many communities around the country are facing: Cities and counties are sometimes buying Flock surveillance technology without any transparency, with no public process, and with very little oversight. Citizens around the country have also felt like their elected officials are not listening to their concerns about surveillance.

It is common practice at city council and county council meetings to allow all residents who have shown up to speak provide public comment, which is one of the reasons that these types of meetings are often many hours long. At the Madison County meeting, these residents were not allowed to speak, which is much different than the practices we’ve seen at other, similar meetings.

Later in the meeting, another resident explains that their public records requests for details about the Sheriff’s Office contracts and use of Flock have not been sufficiently responded to. She was allowed to speak because she was providing comment about her requests for public records, and not Flock specifically. “I’m here to talk about the lack of government transparency and accountability that I’ve seen come up with the Flock issue, starting with tonight. I think that it’s disgraceful the way you are refusing to let citizens speak to their elected officials,” she said. “We’ve repeatedly asked you to hold a public meeting for us to discuss this, so I’m very disappointed to see a lack of transparency.”

The Madison County Board of Commissioners and Madison County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment.


Flock, the automatic license plate reader (ALPR) company, exposed some of the license plate cops were looking for and the reason for doing so.#Flock #News


Flock Leaked Cops’ License Plate Searches via DuckDuckGo, Bing


Automatic license plate reader (ALPR) company Flock exposed the reasons cops conducted searches, and sometimes the specific searched license plates, in common search engines like DuckDuckGo and Bing, according to tests by privacy advocates and 404 Media and a statement from the company.

The news marks an unusual data breach, and shows that sometimes surveillance technology can leak data in unexpected ways. 404 Media previously reported that Flock exposed the live feeds of some of its cameras.

In May the NoCo Privacy Coalition, an activist organization focused on Northern Colorado, shared with 404 Media multiple search engine results that appeared to expose some data related to Flock searches.

💡
Do you know anything else about Flock? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co.

This post is for subscribers only


Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now


There have been more than a dozen cases around the country where police use Flock to obsessively and illegally stalk people.#Flock


Cops Keep Getting Arrested for Using Flock to Stalk People


For months during the summer of 2024, Jarmarus Brown, an Orange City, Florida police officer, ran his ex-girlfriend's license plate through the Flock automated license plate reader (ALPR) system lookup database at least 69 times. He searched for the license plate belonging to her mom at least 24 times, and searched for the license plate belonging to her dad at least 15 times. Brown’s searches were happening so often, and were so commonplace, that even one of his colleagues noticed Brown researching his ex-girlfriend's whereabouts while the law enforcement officers sat in their police cruisers, according to court records obtained by 404 Media.

“While they were sitting there, Officer [Shadrich] King noticed Jarmarus was on the Flock system and a license plate reader image of [Brown’s ex-girlfriend] was on the screen,” a police affidavit about Brown’s behavior obtained by 404 Media reads. “Officer King said he mentioned to Jarmarus that he needed to stop running her vehicle in that system because he could get in trouble. Jarmarus responded saying that he knew that, and he was going to stop.” Flock’s automated license plate readers document every car that drives past them, creating a broad network of people’s movements around the country. Police can then look up license plates to learn where a specific car and, by extension, person, has traveled over time.

On another occasion, Brown told King that he believed his ex was lying about her whereabouts. She “told Jarmarus she was at her house with her mother, but Jarmarus knew for a fact she was not. When questioned by Officer King as to how he knew for a fact she was lying, Jarmarus said he used the Flock system and saw that her vehicle was elsewhere,” the affidavit reads. “Jarmarus then asked Officer King if he wanted to join him on a ‘stakeout’ to try to see where her vehicle was located.”

According to Brown’s ex-girlfriend, while they were dating he would “constantly require [her] to either be on FaceTime with him or be on the phone with him, even while she was working […] Jarmarus would try to control aspects of [her] life, such as the amount of makeup she would wear and the length of her fingernails.” According to the affidavit, Brown’s stalking extended beyond license place lookups; at one point while they were dating, he put an Apple AirTag in her wallet. But the bulk of his surveillance came through Flock, the affidavit says, noting that he kept “randomly showing up at the places she was at.”

The affidavit states Brown told investigators that “he would occasionally run her tag through Flock to track her whereabouts” because he believed she was lying to him. “It was dumb as hell on my end, emotions flowing, mind going,” he told investigators. The investigators ultimately determined Brown “knowingly and intentionally accessed the password protected computer systems, Flock and DAVID [a Florida DMV vehicle information database], to run the license plates of vehicles [she] frequently drove, for his own personal reasons. There was no work related, justifiable, reasons to do so, other than to track [her] whereabouts.” Brown was ultimately charged with stalking and hacking-related charges; he served one day in prison and was sentenced to five years of probation.

Brown’s case was not a one-off. Local news reports from around the country repeatedly detail police abusing the Flock surveillance systemic order to stalk their partners or ex-partners. The contours of each story are much the same, with the police officer in question using their access to the system to repeatedly track a specific person over the course of weeks or months. The cases highlight the fact that Flock can be used to track the whereabouts of individual people, that police do not get a warrant in order to use the system, and that, if they have access to the system, they have the technical ability to look up any license plate they want for any reason they want. An April study by the civil rights group Institute for Justice found that at least 18 police officers have been caught around the country using Flock to stalk a romantic interest in the last few years; another database, called the ALPR Abuse Library, has documented 20 specific cases of “stalking/targeting” around the country.

The known cases of police stalking are almost certainly a vast underreporting of the overall abuse, because they largely include only cases in which the behavior was so egregious that it led to police officers being fired, arrested, or both.

Flock told 404 Media that it is “aware of 15 incidents of abuse, each surfaced because of the transparency and accountability features deliberately built into our platform.”

“There are also 140,000 monthly active users of Flock, so the relatively rare instances of abuse, while obviously wrong and awful, are exactly that—rare,” a Flock spokesperson told 404 Media. “Humans are fallible; unlike most tools society provide law enforcement, Flock ensures that in the instances when our technology is misused, the evidence used to hold responsible parties accountable, is right there in our system. We also encourage all our customers to have a usage policy, regular training, and to implement our Audit Assistance tool, which proactively flags unintended use.”

💡
Do you know anything else about Flock? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at jason.404. Otherwise, send me an email at jason@404media.co.

It is definitely the case that Flock’s audit tools have proven useful in holding police accountable, because journalists, activists, and concerned citizens from around the country have pored through Flock audit logs that they have obtained through public records requests to document abuse. But it is also the case that Flock has strenuously fought against lawsuits and potential regulations that are seeking to require police to get a warrant to use the system. And many cases of abuse have not been detected by police departments themselves but by those private citizens, journalists, and stalking victims who have found patterns of abuse in public records files they have obtained from their local police departments. In most cases of Flock-related stalking reviewed by 404 Media, the abuse occurred over the course of months or years, and the victims were subjected to dozens or hundreds of lookups.

Other abuse cases have been discovered using the website HaveIBeenFlocked.com, a website that compiles Flock searches released via public records requests and turns them into a searchable database. Flock has repeatedly tried to get that website taken down, as we have previously reported.

In Wisconsin, a stalking victim checked her own license plate on HaveIBeenFlocked.com and learned that City of Milwaukee Police Officer Josue Ayala had searched her license plate more than 100 times. After reporting this alleged abuse to the police, the agency ran its own audit and learned that Ayala had also searched the license plate of a second victim 124 times in a two-month span last year, according to court records. Each time, Ayala simply listed “investigation” as the reason for his search. In another alleged abuse case in Idaho, the police chief used Flock to allegedly stalk his wife using the reason “test” in the Flock system.

A citizens’ anti-surveillance organizing group, called Deflock Joplin, found anomalous searches by a police officer in Joplin, Missouri, last year. Using Flock audit logs they obtained using a public records request, they found one single license plate that was searched by one specific police officer 395 times in a 10-month span in 2025; they found that a second plate had been searched 147 times (the police officer’s name was redacted in the records).

“The activity presented here is startling and damning,” Deflock Joplin wrote in a blog about its investigation. “One user's account at JPD has surveilled people for around a year without detection. We see no conceivable way the Joplin Police Department is auditing these logs. This activity was blatant and obvious if anyone had bothered to take a look. We were able to find this data, file records requests, create a website, and share them in our spare time […] This system must be removed or severely curtailed to protect residents and their privacy.”

Soon after Deflock Joplin shared its findings with the city, the police officer in question was fired: “During that investigation, it was found that this single Joplin Police Officer did violate the policy regarding department equipment and systems,” the city wrote in a press release. “Any misuse of the Flock system or any other Joplin Police resource will not be tolerated, and discipline will be administered swiftly and in accordance with policy.”

In Orange City, Florida, Brown’s ex suspected she was being stalked and spoke to a friend within the police department, who told her that Brown “used law enforcement databases to track her whereabouts.” She then made a stalking complaint, which started the investigation, according to the affidavit.

In Coffee County, Georgia, officer Chris Rozar was charged with eight crimes, including computer invasion of privacy, prohibited use of captured license plate data, and stalking, because he allegedly “did knowingly misuse the Coffee County Sheriff’s Office Flock Law Enforcement Camera System and Tag Reader System […] for the purposes of stalking,” and that he “did follow, track, and surveil [the victim] throughout multiple locations in Coffee County, without the consent of said person, for the purpose of harassing and intimidating said person.” This case, too, was not discovered through Flock’s auditing tools: “The investigation began about two years ago after a woman came forward with allegations that Rozar had [been] stalking her,” a press release about Rozar’s arrest reads.

In Bonner Springs, Kansas, a police officer allegedly used Leonardo-brand license plate reader cameras to stalk his ex wife as part of a horrifying and extensive hacking and spying campaign; the officer was also found to have beastiality and child sexual abuse material on his devices.

There are more than a dozen other cases from around the country where the story is much the same; a police officer stalks their partner or an ex for months before ultimately getting caught and fired or arrested. These cases repeatedly show that, because there are few limits on what police can use Flock for, they are often able to abuse the system for months or years before being caught.

Many of the known cases of police abuse were only discovered after the victim reported being stalked or after data crunching by journalists or local government transparency groups; many of the cases of abuse happened over the course of months. 404 Media is also aware of several instances in which an officer improperly used Flock and was simply warned or made to take leave, which did not rise to the level of being arrested or fired. 404 Media is also aware of at least one case that has not yet been reported in the media; in Dunwoody, Georgia, several police officers were fired or made to resign for improperly researching people through the Georgia Crime Information Center, a state database. At least one of the fired officers also improperly searched the city's Flock cameras, according to an internal investigative report shared with 404 Media by Jason Hunyar, a Dunwoody resident who has been investigating Flock. Dunwoody has a very close relationship with Flock and the company used Dunwoody as a demonstration for other police departments during sales pitches until Hunyar discovered that the company was accessing cameras in a children's gymnasium during these sales pitches.

“The fundamental problem with these systems is that they place private information about people’s movements over time in the hands of every officer,” Michael Soyfer, an Institute for Justice attorney, said in the organization’s report. “Without the constitutional safeguard of a warrant requirement, that predictably allows officers to abuse their access to these systems for things like stalking romantic partners.”


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

Regretful cities aren't sure how to cancel their surveillance contracts, so they are literally covering their cameras.#Flock #ALPR


Cities Are Covering Flock Cameras With Trash Bags


The city of Dayton, Ohio has covered its Flock automated license plate reader cameras with black trash bags in part because police there are unsure whether the cameras are still active and the city also doesn’t seem to know whether it is allowed to take the cameras down. The move comes after months of resident outrage, a scandal in which the city was sharing Flock camera data for immigration enforcement apparently on accident, and a $30,000 audit into how the cameras are being used.

Joe Parlette, the deputy city manager of Dayton, said at a city commission meeting last week that the “Dayton Police Department agreed to work with Public Works to put bags over the cameras” as a stop-gap measure until Flock cameras could be removed entirely. I spoke to multiple people in Dayton who said they had seen bagged cameras in the last few days. The Dayton Daily News first reported on the baggings.
Bagged Flock cameras in Dayton. Image: Melissa Bertolo
Dayton is not the first city to cover its Flock cameras with trash bags because they can’t figure out how to immediately terminate the use of the cameras. Late last year, the city of Evanston, Illinois also covered its cameras with trash bags while it was waiting for the company to remove them from the city. Cities around the country have been reconsidering their relationship with the surveillance company after reporting from 404 Media and local news outlets that showed data from the cameras was making its way to Immigration and Customs Enforcement through Flock’s national camera network.

Most cities that have reconsidered their contracts have done so via city council meetings and public debate that have played out over the course of months, and both Dayton and Evanston city officials told residents that they were not sure whether they could immediately deactivate or remove the cameras under the terms of their contracts. And so both cities decided to physically block them as a stop-gap measure, showing that cities feel that they do not have the ability to unilaterally decide when to stop using Flock surveillance cameras.
youtube.com/embed/4kE730WGGBo?…
The bagging came after Dayton city commissioner Darius Beckham said at a city commission meeting last week that the city has been “requesting that the Flock cameras be taken down. I think we are working through how soon we can do that. I think in the interim, we are trying to figure out what steps can be taken to mitigate the vulnerability and concerns that there are still recordings being taken.” Covering them with trash bags is the idea the city ultimately came up with.

Cities are not sure what their contracts state how to extricate themselves from those contracts, or whether the cameras are recording (and where that data is going). This uncertainty highlights the problems associated with using private, third-party surveillance infrastructure. Last week, for example, the mayor of Menominee, Wisconsin said that Flock cameras in the city “have been activated without city council approval.”

Dayton has had Flock cameras in the city for several years, but in October the city learned that data from the cameras was being passed to the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement through Flock’s national network, which is a phenomenon we first reported in May of last year. The city claimed that it did not intend for this sharing to happen, and that a specific police officer “failed to implement the safeguards he helped develop” to prevent the sharing; essentially, a setting to prevent the sharing was not enabled. On May 1, the police department announced that it was “indefinitely suspending the use of our fixed-site automated license plate readers” because of this data sharing, and that the officer who failed to implement the privacy safeguards would be leaving the department.
youtube.com/embed/rI21dhSndPM?…
“It’s very disappointing, and disappointing would be a pretty mild word,” Dayton Police Chief Kamran Afzal said in a press conference earlier this month. “Disappointing would be a pretty mild word. My choice words I cannot say live on air or how I really feel, but it’s disappointing and disgusting would be another word I would use … absolutely it was user error. It’s nothing more than that because we shut things down right away as soon as we found out [about the sharing]. All they needed to do was hit a toggle button saying ‘nope, no sharing’ and then we were done.” On March 31, Afzal announced he would be resigning this summer to take another job in North Carolina.

For months, city residents have been calling for more accountability from the city of Dayton and for the resignation of Dayton’s city manager over the use of Flock cameras. Melissa Bertolo, who has been pushing against Flock cameras through an organization called DeFlock Dayton and the Coalition for Public Protection, told 404 Media that the work of residents to push for transparency about Flock data sharing practices in the city has brought the issue to the forefront.

“It’s a step in the right direction,” Bertolo said of covering the cameras, adding that, ultimately the cameras need to come down. “Our coalition has made six demands—covering the cameras is not one of them. Removal of the cameras is one of them. It’s a step toward that. We have had all five city commissioners saying they agreed with taking down the cameras, but they say there’s a process to figuring that out … so even if the program is quote unquote ‘suspended’ data is still able to be captured. We can’t just say the program is suspended until we can actively know they’re down.”

One of the major questions is whether Dayton is actually going to end the Flock program, and how it will be able to do so. In August, Evanston terminated its contract with Flock, and the Flock cameras were removed. The city then claimed Flock “reinstalled the cameras without the city’s permission,” and sent the company a cease-and-desist. Reporting by the Evanston Roundtable suggested that the cameras were possibly active after they had been reinstalled. The city then decided to cover the cameras with trash bags; the cameras were fully removed from the city earlier this year.

“All Flock cameras have been removed from Evanston,” a spokesperson for the city of Evanston told 404 Media. “The cameras are owned by Flock and had to be removed by Flock. While we awaited the removal, we covered them.”

A Flock spokesperson told 404 Media that “of course, any city can turn off its cameras if it no longer wants to use them. However, each contract is negotiated with the city attorney beforehand, and legal conditions may prevent a city from voiding the contract without grounds to do so.”

“Our goal is to ensure city leaders make that decision with open eyes, regardless of the contract,” the spokesperson added. “You're well aware of the volume of misinformation that has spread thru Reddit threads and on YouTube, and we always want to ensure that a city fully understands the impact of their decision before cameras are turned off. Like Richmond, CA claiming they saw a 33% spike in auto thefts during the time cameras were off, or multiple violent incidents in Austin, Texas that would have ended much earlier had they been using Flock.”

Notably, Flock said that it wants to keep working with the city of Dayton: “We're proud to work with the city of Dayton, OH and hope we can continue.”

The City of Dayton did not respond to a request for comment.


A Texas councilmember will propose “a total ban on all cellular and GPS-capable devices for all operations within city limits" and"a total termination of all internet services."#Flock


After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet and Phone Ban


After months of discussion and outrage from residents, the city council of the tiny town of Bandera, Texas voted 3-2 to immediately end its contract with the surveillance company Flock. In the aftermath of the vote, one of the dissenting council members crashed out and said he would be introducing measures to ban cell phones, the internet, cameras, and nearly all technology in the town of roughly 900 people.

Bandera had a state grant to install eight Flock Safety AI license plate reader cameras in the tiny town. The technology proved to be incredibly controversial, with residents repeatedly turning out to city council meetings to say that they did not want government surveillance in the town; the poles that the cameras were installed on were repeatedly destroyed by vandals in protest, leading the town to have to replace them at their own expense. Last week, the town formally decided to abandon its contract with Flock entirely.

After the vote, Councilmember Jeff Flowers, a staunch Flock supporter, said that if people in the town wanted privacy then the city council should basically ban all technology, essentially calling people who did not want government surveillance hypocrites. Flowers said he would propose a series of new regulations at an upcoming city council meeting, which he is calling the “Bandera Declaration of Digital Independence.” In a letter posted by the local newspaper, the Bandera Bulletin, Flowers said that in the name of preserving privacy he would suggest the city go back to the days of 1880 .

“For months, I have listened to the outcry regarding License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology. I have seen the eyerolls, and I’ve even been met with ‘Nazi rhetoric,’ the dangerous claim that believing in accountability and community safety is somehow equivalent to totalitarianism,” Flowers wrote. “Comparing a neighbor’s desire for a safe street to a dark chapter of history is a classic case of comparing apples to oranges; it is a distraction used to avoid the reality of the threats our town faces today.”

Flowers said that at the next city council meeting he will propose “a total ban on all cellular and GPS-capable devices for all operations within city limits. If we are to be truly ‘private,’ we must leave our smartphones at the city line.” He will also propose “a total ban on outward facing cameras,” and “a total termination of all internet services and electronic record-keeping. We are going back to 1880, paper ledgers and cash only.”
youtube.com/embed/wMLiK71vDFs?…
Like in many other communities around the country, the use of Flock’s AI cameras has become a major topic of discussion in Bandera. In February, Bandera held a town hall meeting exclusively about Flock that Flowers moderated. Kerry McCormack, a former Cleveland city council member who is now on the public affairs team for Flock, came to that meeting to discuss the technology, demonstrating that the company is sending representatives even to tiny towns in order to promote its use. Bandera paid for its Flock cameras using a public safety grant from the state of Texas; in his letter, Flowers said that the city “didn’t just throw away a state grant (free money), they spent $15,000 of your local tax dollars out of pocket to back out of the deal.”

In an earlier February city council meeting, Flowers said, “I believe personally that guilty people act defensively. If you don’t have anything to hide, then it shouldn’t be a problem. I also believe when you are in a public space, your privacy kind of goes out the window because you are in essence in a public place.”

Bandera had eight Flock cameras installed. At the meeting last week where the town voted to end the Flock contract, residents noted that Bandera has one of the lowest crime rates in the state. Other residents noted that people in the town kept cutting down the poles the Flock cameras are installed on, leading the town to continually spend money and time to replace them. Residents said they felt like they made it clear that they do not want the cameras in the town, but that the town had dragged its feet on actually ending the contract.
youtube.com/embed/atghrx8N-No?…
“This is the fifth meeting [about Flock]. How many more meetings are we going to have to have before we get to the idea that we don’t need the Flock system?” one resident said in the meeting last week. “How many more meetings is it going to take before we understand the community didn’t vote for this? They don’t want it. How many more times are the cameras going to have to get cut down before somebody realizes it’s not worth the money? It’s coming to a point where we’re going to have to have meetings until we’re all dead […] By putting the cameras back up [after they’ve been cut down], you’re basically baiting someone else to come cut them down or shoot them down, you’re basically causing an issue because we didn’t vote for it.”

Another resident said Flock “doesn’t pass the vibe check. Bandera is the cowboy capital of the world. We don’t need to implement mass government surveillance in our town.”
youtube.com/embed/1Z4k_vDovbY?…
At the meeting last week, city council members discussed how it was clear residents didn’t want Flock cameras, and that the town had stopped installing new ones, but that it never formally ended the contract. “Call for a vote please,” one council member eventually said. “It’s a waste of time,” to keep discussing a technology that residents didn’t want, they added. At that point, the council proposed to “deactivate and remove any Flock cameras that are city owned,” and voted to end the contract.

The discussion that happened in Bandera is essentially the same one that has played out throughout the country in small towns and large cities across the political spectrum. Time and time again, local politicians advocate for more surveillance even when it is clear their constituents don’t want it. In Troy, New York, the city council voted to end its Flock contract, for example, but the mayor declared a state of emergency to continue using the cameras, The Washington Post reported. In Dunwoody, Georgia, residents have been fighting against Flock after they learned the company was using cameras in the city in sales demos. The city council there elected to slightly tweak its contract with Flock but not end it entirely. Later this week, Flock is throwing a training for police officers about “how to speak with city councils: meeting the moment with confidence.”

In his letter to residents, Flowers said that they should stop being hypocrites by using technology.

“Let’s take Bandera back to 1880 properly. No double standards, no hypocrisy,” Flowers wrote. “If LPRs are ‘unconstitutional’ and invade our right to ‘public’ privacy, we need to be courageous enough to go all the way. I look forward to the ‘Privacy First’ crowd showing up to support these bans [...] just remember to leave your phones at home.”

Earlier this year, after the February town hall meeting, Flowers told the Bandera Bulletin that he believed town residents’ privacy concerns “deserve to be addressed directly and respectfully.” Flowers did not respond to multiple requests for comment from 404 Media.


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

Residents of Dunwoody, Georgia are furious about the city's surveillance contract with Flock. Do their elected officials care?#Flock


City Learns Flock Accessed Cameras in Children's Gymnastics Room as a Sales Pitch Demo, Renews Contract Anyway


Residents of an Atlanta suburb have been rocked by the revelation that sales employees at Flock have been accessing sensitive cameras in the town to demonstrate the company’s surveillance technology to police departments around the country. The cameras accessed have included surveillance tech in a children’s gymnastics room, a playground, a school, a Jewish community center, and a pool.

Flock has taken issue with the way that residents and activists have characterized the access but confirmed that the camera access did happen as part of its sales demonstrations. A blog post by Jason Hunyar, a Dunwoody, Georgia resident who learned about Flock accessing the city’s cameras by obtaining Flock access logs via a public records request is called “Why Are Flock Employees Watching Our Children?

Flock has pushed back against this characterization on social media, in a blog post, at city council meetings, and in a statement to 404 Media: “The city of Dunwoody is one city in our demo partner program,” a Flock spokesperson told 404 Media. “The cities involved in this program have authorized select Flock employees to demonstrate new products and features as we develop them in partnership with the city. Moreover, select engineers can access accounts with customer permission to debug or fix any issues that may arise. No one is spying on children in parks, as the substack incorrectly asserts.”

Flock also argued that it is more transparent than any other surveillance company because it creates these access logs at all, and they can be obtained using public records requests. “Also, I must state the irony of the situation. We're one of the few technology companies in this space dedicated to radical transparency [...] I understand the concern from the resident, but it is unequivocally false to assert that Flock, or the police, or city officials are doing anything other than using technology to stop major crimes in the city.”

The records Hunyar obtained, however, show that some of the cameras that were accessed were in sensitive locations, including the pool at the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta (in Dunwoody), the children’s gymnastics room at MJCCA, and several fitness centers and studios. The access logs obtained by Hunyar show at the very least how expansive Flock’s surveillance systems can be in a single city, encompassing not just cameras purchased by the city but also cameras purchased by private businesses.
A picture of Dunwoody's "Real Time Crime Center," which is "powered by Flock Safety." Image: City of Dunwoody
After Hunyar wrote about what he found, Flock has agreed to stop using Dunwoody’s cameras to demonstrate its product. Flock’s FAQ page states that “Flock customers own their data” and “Flock will not share, sell, or access your data.” It also states “nobody from Flock Safety is accessing or monitoring your footage.” Flock also published a blog post that notes “one of the benefits communities value most about Flock technology is the ability for law enforcement to directly access privately owned cameras, if and only if the organization allows them to, for crime-solving and security purposes.”

💡
Do you know anything else about Flock? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at jason.404. Otherwise, send me an email at jason@404media.co.

“Fair questions have been asked about conducting demos on cameras in sensitive locations when doing this very critical testing in the real-world. Last week, in the City of Dunwoody, questions were raised about a demo conducted as part of authorized activity approved under the city's demo partner agreement, on cameras at a local Jewish Community Center. Although the camera was only viewed during a routine demo, we understand that this is a sensitive location for many. We have therefore determined that employees will be trained to only conduct demos in more public locations, like retail parking lots,” Flock wrote in the blog. “Accusing someone of spying on children is not a policy disagreement; it is a life-altering allegation. Claims of inappropriate conduct by our employees are false. The employees being named online are well-intentioned employees who accessed a camera network with the city's explicit permission, as part of their job. They are now being called predators for it.”

The incident prompted a direct email apology from Flock CEO Garrett Langley to the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta which was then forwarded to Dunwoody Mayor Lynn Deutsch. That email was obtained by Hunyar using a public records request and was shared with 404 Media: “You may have seen that questions have been raised about Flock employees’ access to security cameras near MJCCA property. While there is a lot of misinformation propagated by some of the voices making these allegations, I want to be direct and apologize for our poor judgement.”

“Because of our relationship with Dunwoody PD as a development partner–meaning we had explicit permission from Dunwoody to use their Flock system for both testing (for product improvement) and demonstration–Flock employees did occasionally access Dunwoody’s devices for those purposes,” Langley added. “I recognize that the choice to use MJCCA, rather than parts of the city, was a poor one on our part. I am cognizant of the additional, well-founded sensitivity of the Jewish community to security concerns at this time. Therefore, I would like to extend a formal apology to you and the entire MJCCA community for this poor decision. Candidly, it is because of the very real security concerns the MJCCA community is feeling that I am so proud of our partnership, and those with Jewish organizations across the country.”


youtube.com/embed/AqOYDNKBr3g?…
For nearly three hours earlier this month, resident after resident questioned the Dunwoody City Council about its relationship with Flock, which is extremely close. Flock has repeatedly championed its work in Dunwoody, and Dunwoody has a "real time crime center" that features a giant wall of Flock cameras and is "powered by Flock Safety."

"Powered by Flock Safety, the cutting-edge RTCC is a comprehensive command center that brings together the City’s license plate recognition (LPR) cameras, gunshot detection, police body cameras, Condor pan-tilt cameras, Flock's Adaptive 911, call geolocation, and third-party video cameras," the city's website says.

At the city council meeting, the residents universally explained to their elected officials that they did not want their tax money funding surveillance technology that has been used to collaborate with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, to look for a woman who had an abortion, has been abused by police officers to stalk women and surveil protests, has suffered from numerous security and privacy scandals, and was now using their city as, at best, a live surveillance sales demonstration and, at worst, was surveilling the city’s children.

“It’s pretty shocking that Flock employees are watching children in Dunwoody. Like, isn’t that mind boggling?,” resident Kenneth Westmoreland testified. “I think it would go a long way if you just showed up with even a little bit of willingness beyond public comment to listen to people who actually know what they’re talking about … It's like, would you put their camera in your child's bedroom? I don't know, but it seems a little bit like it to me.”

Another resident, Aaron Miller, suggested that continuing the Flock contract could be a liability for the city, mentioned that its cameras have been used for stalking, that Flock data has been given to ICE, and that Dunwoody’s cameras had been accessed by Flock. “If and when this misconduct crosses yet another line into unequivocal stalking or god forbid something worse, you will be responsible and you will have to answer for the fact that you knew well in advance that this technology enables and facilitates these kinds of gross violations, and it’s not just about the fine details of the contract,” Miller said.

“We should get rid of Flock,” another resident, Sean Collins, said plainly. “I want to congratulate everyone sitting here that has come out all these weeks and put all their effort and their time into this to not only research and write speeches, but to try and inform you guys and persuade you guys. I think it’s awesome that the community is building, unfortunately, around a negative event and hopefully in the future we can build around something positive instead.”

During the three hours, I was impressed with the depth of knowledge residents had about a relatively complex surveillance system and the many ways that Flock has been abused, many of which we have reported on over the last several years. Not every resident got every fact correct, and Flock has made it abundantly clear that it believes the idea that it is “spying on children” is unfair. And yet, it is reasonable for residents to wonder why their city is being used as a live sales demo, why their community is so heavily surveilled, and why these cameras are being accessed so often. It is reasonable for residents to want to have a conversation about whether they want this technology at all.

And the overwhelming message from Dunwoody residents is: This is too much. They are not interested in minor tweaks to contracts, lip service about privacy, being told that their concerns are overblown or don’t matter, and being told to go away. They are not interested in being told that the reason there are livestreaming cameras at the children’s gymnastics room is complicated, actually. And yet, that is exactly what their politicians and Flock itself have been telling them.

After these and many other impassioned speeches from residents, Dunwoody mayor Lynn Deutsch said she was “concerned and perplexed” when she learned that sensitive Dunwoody cameras were being accessed, then said “I sought a solution and where we landed is that Flock will no longer use Dunwoody for demonstration projects. So that wasn’t acceptable. They have apologized to the JCC [Jewish Community Center] … I’m not excusing it at all, I was very frustrated and angry and I believe this is a solution, at least part of a solution from keeping them out of places Flock should not be.”

“The inference that we’re doing something behind doors, that we’re taking bribes, it’s all kinds of not at all correct,” she added. “We haven’t done any of this in secret. I cannot stress enough that none of this was done without proper notice.” She then said that she did not have any interest in ending the city’s Flock contract, though some tweaks to its existing contract would be sought.

Jason Hunyar, the man who requested the public records that showed how broad Flock’s network is and the fact that Flock employees were accessing the city’s cameras, shared an email exchange he had with Deutsch and other city officials when he first discovered what was happening.

“Mayor/City Council, Here is a write-up I'm going to release publicly after I send this email detailing the unfettered access that Flock has to our data. This includes … watching us and our children at the library, MJCCs pools, MJCCs fitness centers, and MJCCs gymnastics studio,” he wrote. “They are even watching you in your council chambers … I am also going to be a member of the JCC coming this fall and my son is going to be in the preschool where some of these exact cameras that these flock employees are looking at. This is where a ton of my concern comes from.”

Deutsch responded and suggested it was irresponsible for him to reveal this information: “Does the JCC realize you’re sharing all about their security system publicly?”

“If I was sending a child to the JCC for preschool, I’m pretty confident, and I say this as a Jewish grandmother with a grandchild in a synagogue preschool, that my number one concern would be security in today’s environment,” she wrote. “I’m disappointed to know that all this is in the public domain, because I think we’re better off when the bad guys don’t know exactly what precautions have been taken. But here we are.”

“I look forward to protecting MJCCA and the City of Dunwoody for years to come.”


Hunyar told me that prior to seeing reporting by 404 Media and the YouTuber Benn Jordan, who lives nearby and has revealed numerous Flock security and privacy problems, he had “never submitted a public records request before or gone to a city council meeting.” He said that he has been frustrated with how the city has responded: “I’ve been trying to explain to them how the technology works, they ask the police, the police lies to them at the city council meeting,” he said. “It’s been a lot of educating them. They’re trying to do this performative stuff by slightly tweaking the contract, and [when I tell them how Flock works], I think ‘Why are you asking me about this and not freaking out that Flock has access to cameras in the children’s gymnastics room?’”

Over the last few months, numerous cities across the country have decided to end their Flock contracts after organizing by residents. In some cases, police and city council members have themselves decided to end Flock contracts due to some of the company’s scandals. In one case, a Virginia police department decided to get rid of Flock after the police chief felt Langley was mischaracterizing the valid privacy concerns of residents as a concerted conspiracy against Flock and its technology.

Despite all of the reporting and outrage about this type of surveillance, cities around the country are still signing new contracts with Flock, often using “discretionary” police or city council funds that can be used with little or no public debate.

Georgia Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Chris Carr saw all that happened in Dunwoody and decided to praise Flock: “Mayor - thanks to Council and you for supporting the use of FLOCK technology,” he wrote. “Georgia’s Constitution says that government has one paramount duty - the protection of person and property. I’m proud to say that Dunwoody’s leadership lived up to their duty by continuing to partner with FLOCK.”

Making anything other than minor changes to the Dunwoody contract does not seem to be on the table; Dunwoody officials including the mayor declined to speak to 404 Media for this story, offering only a statement from a city spokesperson that said “We are working through a range of items with Flock as we develop a Master Services Agreement for consideration by City Council.” When I followed up, I was told “This was discussed during the City Council meeting. I don’t have anything to add.” Dunwoody voted to renew its contract after all of this.

In Langley’s apology email to the MJCCA, he said “I look forward to protecting MJCCA and the City of Dunwoody for years to come.”


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

Ron DeSantis has empowered hundreds of Florida conservation police to work directly with ICE.#Flock #ICE


Wildlife Conservation Police Are Searching Thousands of Flock Cameras for ICE


Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) police are performing dozens of license plate lookups on Flock cameras for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to public records that show details of the searches.

The practice highlights how ICE, which does not have a contract with Flock, continues to get access to Flock’s AI-powered license plate scanning cameras through local and state police, and often in ways that are unusual, unexpected, and difficult for the public to track or hold the agency accountable for. In this case, ICE has gained access to Flock data through a law enforcement agency that is nominally supposed to be focused on conservation, protecting endangered species, and investigating boating and maritime issues. 404 Media initially reported on how ICE was getting side-door access to Flock data via local police in May 2025.

That reporting led to a series of reforms and safeguards that are supposed to make it easier for law enforcement agencies that use Flock to opt out of having their surveillance camera data passed to federal agencies; a blog post by Flock called “Does Flock Share Data With ICE?” now states plainly “No. Flock does not work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or any other sub-agency of the Department of Homeland Security.” But in practice, the public records show that as of the end of January (the most recent data available) thousands of agencies around the country were sharing their camera data with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission police, which was then regularly performing lookups for ICE.

Flock cameras continually scan the license plate, brand, and color of every vehicle that drives by. Law enforcement can then search the Flock system to see where else a vehicle has travelled. Crucially, Flock maintains a national lookup tool where agencies in one state can search data generated by cameras in another, even if those cameras are on the other side of the country. Law enforcement typically do this without a warrant.

💡
Do you know anything else about Flock? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at jason.404. Otherwise, send me an email at jason@404media.co.

A January Flock network audit for Ball State University, a public university in Indiana that has a contract with Flock, shows that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission police performed 38 different Flock searches for reasons that were listed as “immigration.”

Flock network audits are spreadsheets that have a separate entry for each time a police department’s Flock data is queried by another agency. Each entry contains information about how many different networks and cameras were searched, the time of the search, and the stated “reason” for the search. The searches performed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission had reasons that ranged from “Immigration (civil/administrative) - I.C.E.” to “Immigration (criminal) - General Criminal Investigation” to “Immigration (criminal) - I.C.E.” The network audit indicated that more than 5,000 different Flock networks were searched in each case, indicating that, as of January, thousands of towns and cities were still sharing data with agencies that ultimately work with ICE despite new safeguards put in place by Flock.

“This highlights when you do mass surveillance, you really can’t control the data,” Jay Stanley, a senior analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404 Media. “I doubt there were many cities that were debating the Florida Fish and Wildlife Services doing searches for ICE when they were talking about whether they should get Flock. It shows these searches can come from really any direction.”

The records in question were obtained from Ball State University by the journalist David Covucci, who covers college sports for his website FOIABall. Covucci shared the documents with 404 Media. The documents showed that, beyond the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission police, the Texas Department of Public Safety, Grant County Indiana Sheriff's Office, Lake County Indiana police, Sarasota County Florida police, Brevard County Florida Sheriff's Office, Nebraska State Patrol, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Fort Pierce Florida Police Department, and Mississippi Department of Public Safety had all done immigration-related Flock searches in January. This means that all of these agencies ultimately searched Flock cameras on Ball State’s campus (and thousands of others across the country) for immigration-related purposes.

Police with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are able to do these lookups for ICE because in August, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis enrolled nearly 800 of its officers in 287(g), a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program that gives state and local police certain immigration enforcement powers. DeSantis has essentially turned many state police into an extension of ICE: “Florida is setting the example for states in combating illegal immigration and working with the Trump Administration to restore the rule of law,” DeSantis said in a press release announcing the move. “By allowing our state agents and law enforcement officers to be trained and approved by ICE, Florida will now have more enforcement personnel deputized to assist federal partners. That means deportations can be carried out more efficiently, making our communities safer as illegal aliens are removed.”

The ACLU published a report in February about how the expansion of the 287(g) program has vastly increased the Trump administration’s deportation force. “While in recent months the nation’s attention has rightly focused on the violence and abuse perpetrated by ICE and Border Patrol agents in places like Minneapolis, in Florida and around the country, communities are experiencing another kind of terror: Their own law enforcement agencies, working hand in glove with the Trump administration, are the perpetrators of blatant racial profiling, harassment, and even violence,” the report says.

The report specifically notes that “Florida appears to have devoted more state and local law enforcement resources to immigration enforcement than any other state, resulting in numerous cases of harassment and profiling of U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike, a climate of extreme fear in communities, and reports of serious civil rights violations.”

The ACLU’s Stanley said that the expansion of 287(g) has made a lot of the debates that communities are having about federal access to Flock data feel outdated, because they may fail to grapple with the fact that local police around the country are now doing work on behalf of federal authorities. “A lot of the focus in communities and elsewhere where Flock is controversial have focused on this question of ‘Will the feds be able to access this data?,’” Stanley said. “This is a reminder that the sharp expansion of 287(g) has made that almost moot because a lot of local authorities are working so closely with ICE.”

Flock has in recent months attempted to distance itself from ICE, in part with the “Does Flock Share Data With ICE?” blog post and with numerous media appearances and LinkedIn posts by its executives. Flock has repeatedly leaned on the idea that its customers own and control their data, and that Flock has made numerous changes to comply with several states’ laws that forbid the use of license plate reader data for immigration or abortion enforcement, or which ban the transfer of license plate camera data out of the state altogether.

“As we've shared with your organization many times, all our customers own their data and choose how to use it, provided it complies with local laws and statutes,” a spokesperson for Flock told 404 Media. “In cities and states where cooperating with federal immigration is against the law, we block that from happening within the product itself. In states where cooperation is legal, customers and their local values determine how they choose to enforce the law.”

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokesperson for Gov. DeSantis’s office, however, told 404 Media that the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission continues to work with ICE. “Please note that it is NOT out of the ordinary for FWC to work alongside ICE as they have a 287 (g) agreement with them-as do all State of Florida law enforcement agencies,” they said.

404 Media, other reporters, and transparency advocates have been reporting on the use of Flock cameras primarily by obtaining network audits through public records requests. But the utility of those network audits is rapidly deteriorating; as we reported earlier this year, Flock has made changes to its network audits that makes each individual entry more vague, and authorities have warned police to be “as vague as permissible” about the reasons why they are using Flock. Many Flock search reasons simply say “investigation” or another blanket term, making it impossible to know why the system was really used. Because of this change, it may become harder to track which agencies are working with ICE, and how often it’s happening.

“I think everybody using Flock knows you can get away with putting something like a generic descriptor that won’t tip off communities to what’s going on,” Stanley said. “This window of visibility is closing, even this very limited flawed, manipulable window of visibility is closing.”


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

“CAPTURED ON FLOCK CAMERA 31 MM 1 HOLDING PHONE IN LEFT HAND.”#Flock


Police Used Flock to Give a Man a Traffic Ticket


Georgia State Patrol used its system of Flock automated license plate reader (ALPR) surveillance cameras to issue a ticket to a motorcyclist who was allegedly looking at his cell phone while riding, according to a copy of the citation obtained by 404 Media. The incident is notable because Flock cameras are not designed for traffic enforcement or minor code violations, and many jurisdictions explicitly tell constituents that the cameras will not be used for traffic enforcement.

The incident happened December 26 in Coffee County, Georgia. The ticket lists the offense as “Holding/supporting wireless telecommunications device,” and includes the note “CAPTURED ON FLOCK CAMERA 31 MM 1 HOLDING PHONE IN LEFT HAND.”

A spokesperson for the Georgia State Patrol told 404 Media that the ticket was issued because of a “unique circumstance” in which a Flock camera happened to capture a traffic infraction, and that Flock cameras are not usually used by the department for traffic enforcement.

“This incident was a rare and unique circumstance where the captured image from the camera exposed an additional violation beyond the vehicle’s expired registration,” the spokesperson said. “This situation does not reflect a standard enforcement endeavor by the Department of Public Safety.” The traffic citation obtained by 404 Media does not mention that the man’s registration was expired.

Still, the incident is notable because Flock cameras are often pitched to police as tools for solving serious crimes, finding stolen vehicles, and locating missing people. They distinctly are not traffic cameras and are not pitched as such; the use of a Flock camera in this way shows that the images they capture can sometimes be detailed enough to be used as the pretext for a traffic violation, anyway.

Many police departments go out of their way to tell community members that Flock cameras are not used for traffic enforcement. For example, the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, states in a FAQ that “GSPD [Glenwood Springs Police Department] does not use Flock cameras for traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, or minor code violations.” El Paso, Texas, tells residents “these are not traffic enforcement cameras. They do not issue tickets, do not monitor speed, and do not generate revenue. They are investigative tools used after crimes occur.” Lynwood, Washington tells residents “these cameras will not be used for traffic infractions, immigration enforcement, or monitoring First Amendment-protected expressive activity” (Flock cameras have now been used for all of these purposes, as we have reported.)

The fact that police in Georgia did use Flock cameras for traffic enforcement highlights yet again that, essentially, law enforcement agencies are able to use these cameras for whatever they want. There are very few limitations on what Flock cameras can be used for, and police do not get warrants to search Flock’s network of cameras, either locally or nationwide. Network audits, which are spreadsheets of Flock searches we have obtained via public records requests, have shown that police use Flock for all sorts of reasons; they often do not list any reason at all for searching a license plate.

The man who was cited in Georgia posted about the incident in an anti-Flock Facebook group asking for advice. He said that he showed up in court and the ticket was dropped. The man did not respond to multiple requests for comment from 404 Media and because he is a private citizen cited for a minor traffic violation, we are not naming him. 404 Media independently obtained the citation.


A massive cache of Flock lookups collated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) shows as many as 50 federal, state, and local agencies used Flock during protests over the last year.#Flock #borderpatrol #FOIA


Cops Used Flock to Monitor No Kings Protests Around the Country


Police departments and officials from Border Patrol used Flock’s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to monitor protests hundreds of times around the country during the last year, including No Kings protests in June and October, according to data obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

The data provides the clearest picture yet of how cops widely use Flock to monitor protesters. In June, 404 Media reported cops in California used Flock to track what it described as an “immigration protest.” The new data shows more than 50 federal, state, and local law enforcement ran hundreds of searches in connection with protest activity, according to the EFF.

This post is for subscribers only


Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now


Court records show that the narrative Flock and a Texas Sheriff's Office has told the public isn't the whole story, and that police were conducting a 'death investigation' into the abortion.

Court records show that the narrative Flock and a Texas Sheriffx27;s Office has told the public isnx27;t the whole story, and that police were conducting a x27;death investigationx27; into the abortion.#Flock #Abortion

Flock's automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras are in more than 5,000 communities around the U.S. Local police are doing lookups in the nationwide system for ICE.

Flockx27;s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras are in more than 5,000 communities around the U.S. Local police are doing lookups in the nationwide system for ICE.#News #ICE #Surveillance #Flock

"It is functionally impossible for people to drive anywhere without having their movements tracked, photographed, and stored in an AI-assisted database that enables the warrantless surveillance of their every move. This civil rights lawsuit seeks to end this dragnet surveillance program."#Surveillance #Flock