With more than 120,000 devices across the country (in every state except Alaska), Flock Safety cameras have become a hot bipartisan issue. Progressives are concerned with who the automated license plate readers are targeting. Conservatives worry about encroachment on civil liberties. But people of all political beliefs and backgrounds are uniting around a shared skepticism (and even hatred) of Flock cameras.
People unhappy with Flock’s surveillance cameras and license plate readers aren’t just writing their state’s representatives or commiserating on Reddit. Some are taking matters into their own hands, spray-painting lenses, sawing off poles, and otherwise vandalizing and destroying the devices. One man in Idaho even drove his truck into a Flock camera. He’s facing a felony charge.
Another man in Florida uses a 14-foot pole to block the camera lens with a piece of cardboard labeled “down with Flock cameras.”
“I basically sit in a nice comfortable chair,” the Florida man says about his protest.
But despite concerns about Constitutional violations and a growing urge against the country to go vigilante against the devices, tampering with and vandalizing Flock cameras is illegal.
How Do Flock Cameras Work?
Flock surveillance systems consist of two main components:
- Pan, tilt, and zoom (PTZ) cameras capture live footage
- Automated license plate readers (ALPR) scan vehicle license plates
Flock partners with law enforcement agencies, neighborhood watch groups, homeowner associations (HOAs), and private companies to track vehicle info and video in targeted areas. Much of the criticism has focused on Flock’s data sharing with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to aid deportation efforts.
Flock allows camera owners to create custom lists of license plate numbers. When these numbers are scanned, Flock alerts the customer — which can be either a private or public entity. Flock also runs scanned license plates against the FBI criminal database, state law enforcement watchlists, and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
Messing With Flock Cameras Can Land You in Trouble
Some states have passed laws to regulate and limit ALPR data use. For example, Washington’s Driver Privacy Act limits law enforcement's use of ALPR for immigration purposes and First Amendment activity, among other protections. In Connecticut, data collected cannot be used for immigration enforcement or for investigations involving gender-affirming care or abortion access.
But just because some states have these protections in place doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all to interfere with the cameras without consequences. Intentionally disabling or damaging a camera can still trigger separate criminal charges.
Most states have laws that make it a crime to damage or interfere with a video criminal surveillance device. For example, Louisiana law defines a crime camera system as “any camera or license plate reader erected or installed for the purpose of observing or deterring illegal activity.” This legal definition is definitely broad enough to include Flock cameras. Tampering with, vandalizing, or destroying a device can land you up to two years in jail and a $2,000 fine.
Other states may not name Flock cameras (or competitors Axon and Motorola Solutions) directly in their statutes, but conduct like cutting wires, spray‑painting lenses, knocking down poles, or disabling power to surveillance systems can result in charges like criminal mischief, property damage, interference with public safety equipment, or obstruction.
In short: Even if the specific rules vary by state, count on facing criminal charges if you’re caught intentionally damaging a Flock camera.
Cities are Saying No to Flock Surveillance Cameras
Rather than statewide bans, local governments are driving the resistance against Flock technology.
Many cities and municipalities are deactivating or canceling their Flock contracts. Thanks to the Deflock project, you can find a map of ALPR’s near you and a growing list of communities that have rejected the devices. The project also lists upcoming city council meetings across the country addressing the technology.
Are Flock Cameras Unconstitutional?
Courts have generally upheld ALPR use as constitutional. However, Fourth Amendment protections become murky when police use the data to monitor, track, and share people’s data and movement over extended periods without a warrant.
The core issue is at what point data collected from an ALPR becomes so extensive and intrusive that it infringes on a person’s constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches.
Flock Cameras: Public Support and Pushback
Flock supporters say the devices help police solve crimes and apprehend offenders more quickly, especially in cases involving stolen vehicles or hit-and-runs. They also argue that known surveillance systems enhance public safety by deterring criminal activity in areas where cameras are present.
Flock systems can also notify law enforcement with a rapid alert when a flagged vehicle enters an area, allowing officers to respond. This rapid response can be critical for situations involving missing children or AMBER alerts.
On the other hand, Flock critics worry that widespread tracking violates privacy laws and creates a surveillance state, a slippery slope to a police state.
Potential misuse is also a concern. Opponents argue that the technology could be used to target those from marginalized communities or monitor protestors.
The technology is also far from perfect. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) “Get the Flock Out” campaign, less than 1% of scanned plates are linked to a crime, and 10% are actually misread by the state.
