Flyway ALPR Maps

See the Flock cameras on your route. Navigate with less surveillance. Privacy-first · Free

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

1/ Flock cameras photograph your plate, car, and location — then that data gets searched and shared. Most people never see the map.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@toddeherman Plate readers fit that pattern. Sold as a way to find stolen cars, they build a searchable record of where everyone drives, often shared with agencies far outside town. Better not to build that database in the first place.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@AntiquarianMuse 88 per 100,000 means most Georgia drivers get logged on an ordinary day, suspect or not. That should not be normal. Residents can ask their city council for the contract, the camera count, and who outside the department can search the data.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@KIRO7Seattle This is why sharing settings are not a safeguard. Shelton's network let outside agencies search local drivers, and it took an audit to find out. Cameras that log every car create that risk just by existing. If they stay, sharing should be off and every search public.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@wxyzdetroit Disconnecting the cameras and not renewing is the right call. Next step is confirming the stored plate data is deleted and that no outside agency kept copies. Madison Heights residents should get that in writing.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@KirkFreemanLaw @police_ind3950 @City_Lafayette The core problem is that every driver gets logged while the searches happen out of public view. Lafayette residents should be able to see the search audit logs. Better still, the cameras should not be collecting this data at all.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@BeardedOG05 If the camera locations stay secret, Abilene residents cannot judge whether the system belongs on their streets. A city that will not say where its plate readers are is giving people a good reason to reconsider having them at all.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@BobbyCheren Good to see this on the lame-duck list. Barring federal agencies helps, but local departments have run searches for federal partners before. The bill should close that path too. The deeper fix is not logging every driver's plate in the first place.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@itssaddddieeee Mostly because police departments sign up city by city, often with little public debate. Residents can ask their city council for the contract, the camera count, and who outside the department can search the data.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@EmergencyMgtMag Rejecting Flock and then bringing in another plate reader vendor would keep the same problem: a record of every car that drives through Milford. The village should decide whether it needs these cameras at all before shopping for new ones.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@nhpr Good that there is a state law to point to. But the first question for other states is whether cameras should log every driver at all. Where they stay, the rules should require a warrant for searches, short retention, and public audit logs.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@BradleyRHaywood That matches what we keep seeing. Rules get passed, then exceptions and data sharing wear them down. Regulation is a fallback at best. The real fix is not having cameras log every driver in the first place.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@mattsmith_news Good to see this debated in the AG race. The first question is whether Wisconsin needs cameras logging every driver at all. If they stay, one statewide rule with warrants, short retention, and public audit logs beats a patchwork of local policies.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@foxnewspolitics Vendor clearance numbers are not an independent audit. The real cost is a standing record of where every driver goes, suspect or not. These cameras should not be on our roads. Where they stay, every search needs a warrant and a public log.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@T3chFalcon If the FBI can buy nationwide plate data without a warrant, local limits stop meaning much. That is the problem with building these databases in the first place. Cities canceling contracts is the right direction.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@13abc The resolution gets the key detail right: end the contracts and delete the Flock data, not just switch off the cameras. Plate readers that log every Toledo driver should not be running. Good to see five council members put it on the Oct. 20 agenda.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@ffxnow Whoever wins in Herndon, the Flock contract deserves a full public vote. Cameras that log every car coming into town should not be there. If the town keeps them, residents should see the sharing list, the retention period, and the search audits.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@thestate Who can access the data and how long it is kept are the right questions for Flock. The bigger one for South Carolina: should cameras that log every driver be on these roads at all? Until lawmakers answer that, searches should need a warrant and public logs.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@Newsday About 725 plate readers across Nassau and Suffolk, by Newsday's count. In Syracuse, NYCLU found drivers' data was accessed 4.4 million times in 11 months. These cameras should not be logging Long Island. If they stay, the pending 48-hour retention bill is the floor.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@chron 51 cameras, 14.6 million vehicle reads in 30 days, and 375 vehicles searched. That is millions of ordinary Conroe drives logged to look up a few hundred cars. That trade should not be made. At minimum, publish the search logs and keep retention short.

[Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway]

@nwi Michigan City dropping the $300,000 Flock expansion after all four sponsors withdrew it shows residents were heard. The existing cameras stay for now, and that is the next question. Plate readers logging every driver should not be on these streets.