Top Tweets for #stopFlock

🚨Flock Camera systems do not simply record basic license plate, make, model, and color information—they use advanced computer vision to capture detailed “vehicle fingerprints,” including dents, scratches, bumper stickers, roof racks, trailers, temporary tags, and other unique identifiers. Combined with precise timestamps, GPS locations, and direction of travel, this creates a rich, searchable record of vehicle movements that can easily reveal sensitive personal patterns, such as visits to doctors, places of worship, protests, or private residences. The claim of “legitimate law enforcement need” and required case numbers sounds reassuring, but in practice these safeguards are weak. Officers across the Flock network (including other cities and sometimes federal agencies) can access our local data through sharing agreements, and real-world records show these systems have been used for immigration enforcement, protest monitoring, and broad “investigative” searches that go well beyond serious local crimes.  Flock’s own contracts give the company broad, ongoing rights to use and disclose this data—even after a city ends its contract—and the 9-month retention period (longer than Flock’s default) means thousands of innocent residents’ movements remain stored and queryable for nearly a year. This is not targeted policing; it is mass surveillance infrastructure that treats every driver as a potential subject of interest. Once installed, the data and network effects are difficult to fully reverse, and the expansion of Flock’s technology into AI description searches and video clips only increases the scope. The privacy cost to residents far outweighs any claimed benefits, especially when less invasive tools like improved community policing, targeted investigations with actual warrants, and better street lighting exist.  Call you city council and ask that they conduct a full independent audit of how these cameras have actually been used, restrict or eliminate data sharing, and ultimately phase them out in favor of approaches that do not turn our streets into a permanent tracking system.

🚨Flock Camera systems do not simply record basic license plate, make, model, and color information—they use advanced computer vision to capture detailed “vehicle fingerprints,” including dents, scratches, bumper stickers, roof racks, trailers, temporary tags, and other unique identifiers. Combined with precise timestamps, GPS locations, and direction of travel, this creates a rich, searchable record of vehicle movements that can easily reveal sensitive personal patterns, such as visits to doctors, places of worship, protests, or private residences. The claim of “legitimate law enforcement need” and required case numbers sounds reassuring, but in practice these safeguards are weak. Officers across the Flock network (including other cities and sometimes federal agencies) can access our local data through sharing agreements, and real-world records show these systems have been used for immigration enforcement, protest monitoring, and broad “investigative” searches that go well beyond serious local crimes.  Flock’s own contracts give the company broad, ongoing rights to use and disclose this data—even after a city ends its contract—and the 9-month retention period (longer than Flock’s default) means thousands of innocent residents’ movements remain stored and queryable for nearly a year. This is not targeted policing; it is mass surveillance infrastructure that treats every driver as a potential subject of interest. Once installed, the data and network effects are difficult to fully reverse, and the expansion of Flock’s technology into AI description searches and video clips only increases the scope. The privacy cost to residents far outweighs any claimed benefits, especially when less invasive tools like improved community policing, targeted investigations with actual warrants, and better street lighting exist.  Call you city council and ask that they conduct a full independent audit of how these cameras have actually been used, restrict or eliminate data sharing, and ultimately phase them out in favor of approaches that do not turn our streets into a permanent tracking system.

🚨Flock Camera systems do not simply record basic license plate, make, model, and color information—they use advanced computer vision to capture detailed “vehicle fingerprints,” including dents, scratches, bumper stickers, roof racks, trailers, temporary tags, and other unique identifiers. Combined with precise timestamps, GPS locations, and direction of travel, this creates a rich, searchable record of vehicle movements that can easily reveal sensitive personal patterns, such as visits to doctors, places of worship, protests, or private residences. The claim of “legitimate law enforcement need” and required case numbers sounds reassuring, but in practice these safeguards are weak. Officers across the Flock network (including other cities and sometimes federal agencies) can access our local data through sharing agreements, and real-world records show these systems have been used for immigration enforcement, protest monitoring, and broad “investigative” searches that go well beyond serious local crimes.  Flock’s own contracts give the company broad, ongoing rights to use and disclose this data—even after a city ends its contract—and the 9-month retention period (longer than Flock’s default) means thousands of innocent residents’ movements remain stored and queryable for nearly a year. This is not targeted policing; it is mass surveillance infrastructure that treats every driver as a potential subject of interest. Once installed, the data and network effects are difficult to fully reverse, and the expansion of Flock’s technology into AI description searches and video clips only increases the scope. The privacy cost to residents far outweighs any claimed benefits, especially when less invasive tools like improved community policing, targeted investigations with actual warrants, and better street lighting exist.  Call you city council and ask that they conduct a full independent audit of how these cameras have actually been used, restrict or eliminate data sharing, and ultimately phase them out in favor of approaches that do not turn our streets into a permanent tracking system.

Flock and Flock-like cameras track where law-abiding people go, who they visit, and how they live - all without a warrant.   I attempted to stop this with an amendment, which unfortunately failed recently in Committee; that’s not the end of this, though. The mass surveillance of the American People must end. Call your legislators.   STOP THE FLOCK.