Flock Safety Cameras

My first introduction to the world of Flock Safety Cameras occurred in the Fall of 2023 when my son’s car was stolen from a Lexington, Kentucky sports and fitness center complex. Lexington police soon reported that the car was photographed by a Flock Safety Camera in a high crime area of the city. Just as the Lexington police predicted, the car was soon located and recovered a few days later when it ran out of gas and the joy ride thrill ended! Although not instrumental in the location and recovery of the car, the Flock Safety Camera was helpful in guiding officers to a specific area of the city to concentrate their search. In this blog, it is my goal to share some information on Flock Safety Cameras and explore why I believe these cameras have engendered such passionate opposition in many quarters. You may be surprised by my rationale, so please stick with me.

I think it would be helpful to explain what Flock Safety Cameras do and what they do not do. These cameras photograph passing vehicles and record information such as license plate numbers; vehicle make and model; vehicle color and type; and time and date of the photograph. But the cameras do not use facial recognition, and it does not collect biometric information about the driver.  The cameras have been used to locate stolen vehicles; vehicles used in robberies, homicides, and other crimes; and to locate missing children, adults, and wanted suspects. Notwithstanding these beneficial uses of the cameras, legitimate concerns have been raised that these cameras create a form of location surveillance with no requirement that police have probable cause to photograph the vehicle. In addition, there have been some recorded abuses of these cameras by rogue police officers to monitor family, friends, and former romantic partners.

In response to these concerns Flock has revised its policies to require mandatory auditing of the use of the cameras and a shorter retention period for collected data with the goal of just a seven-day retention period. Notwithstanding these changes, many cities have suspended use of the cameras and others have permanently removed the cameras. The Kentucky legislature has passed, and the governor has signed legislation during the last legislative session which restricts the use of the cameras for only specific law enforcement purposes and requires that data collected from the cameras may not be preserved for more than 90 days except for a limited number of law enforcement exceptions.

I believe that Flock’s policy changes and laws such as Kentucky’s will satisfy many of the concerns raised about the cameras. But I am skeptical that these changes will end the controversy and satisfy the concerns of civil libertarians on the right and the left. Why would that be the case? In my opinion, there is today in our nation a very high degree of distrust of government and elected officials. I believe this distrust includes a lack of confidence in the competence of government to solve problems and protect the interests of ordinary citizens and a lack of faith that elected officials will be good stewards of their authority; fail to do what they have promised; and otherwise act in the best interests of their constituents. In response, many may say that this lack of confidence in government to solve problems and in elected officials to keep their promises has always been the case. I believe there is some validity to this school of thought, but I believe the events of the last 17 years create a far greater sense of skepticism and even cynicism in how citizens view the action taken by government and elected officials, especially at the national level.  Let me name a few examples which have contributed to this unfortunate development: False promises by the U.S. President in the massive 2010 federal health care reform legislative debate that the legislation would reduce costs and not disrupt physician-patient relationships with the result that quality healthcare is now far less available and far more expensive than it’s ever been; false assurances by the leaders of a U.S. President’s political party and his family and staff that he was “sharp as a tack” and totally in command of his mental faculties which were totally discredited on a national debate stage; and false and embarrassing bravado by the current U.S. President that the military campaign against Iran would end favorably within six weeks when after six months there is still no honorable and satisfactory end in sight for the military campaign.

Let me conclude by saying that the debate about the use of Flock Safety Cameras is a healthy and necessary debate. I have a high level of confidence that the right checks and balances will eventually be implemented so that the public safety benefits of the cameras can be preserved, and the legitimate civil liberty concerns satisfactorily addressed. Unfortunately, I do not have the same level of confidence that the cynicism and distrust of government and elected officials will be so easily solved. And this presents a far greater concern for our great country!

God bless you and thank you for the privilege of your time in reading my blog. 

•