Should Flock Cameras Exist? Most Americans Don't Even Know What They Are

A Simple Question That Led to a Surprising Conversation

Recently, I took a trip down to Imperial Beach, California, with a camera, a microphone, and a question that I thought would spark some interesting conversations.

Should private companies be allowed to install Flock cameras and collect information about the movements of everyday Americans?

I wanted to hear what ordinary people thought. Not politicians, not privacy experts, and certainly not people with a financial interest in surveillance technology. Just everyday Americans going about their lives.

As I walked around Imperial Beach approaching people for interviews, I came across a middle-aged gentleman who immediately caught my attention. He had a calm, thoughtful demeanor and struck me as someone who had experienced quite a bit of life.

I figured he might have an interesting perspective on the issue.

I approached him and asked a relatively straightforward question:

"Do you know what Flock cameras are?"

To my absolute surprise, he had no idea.

He had never heard of Flock cameras, despite the technology's rapidly expanding presence throughout the United States.

And honestly, his answer made me wonder how many other Americans would respond exactly the same way.

What Exactly Are Flock Cameras?

For anyone unfamiliar with the technology, Flock cameras are automated license plate readers developed by a private technology company called Flock Safety.

Unlike ordinary security cameras, Flock's license plate recognition systems use artificial intelligence to identify and record information about vehicles passing through their field of view.

These systems can collect:

• ▸License plate numbers and registration states
• ▸Vehicle makes, models, and colors
• ▸The exact time and date a vehicle passes a camera
• ▸The location of the camera that recorded the vehicle

This information is then stored in a searchable database, allowing authorized users to locate records of vehicles appearing at particular locations and times.

Flock Safety provides this technology to police departments, businesses, residential communities, and other organizations.

The cameras are not facial recognition systems, and they do not directly identify the person driving a vehicle. However, when multiple cameras record the same license plate, those records can potentially reveal patterns about a vehicle's movements.

Think about that for a moment.

A camera might record your vehicle driving to work. Another might record it entering a shopping center. Another could capture it traveling through a residential neighborhood.

Individually, these observations might seem harmless. Collectively, they can reveal a surprisingly detailed picture of someone's routine.

And this is where the conversation gets interesting.

His Immediate Reaction: "That's Wrong."

After realizing the gentleman had never heard of Flock cameras, I explained what the technology does, how it collects vehicle information, and how a private company provides these systems to organizations across the country.

His reaction was almost immediate.

He felt that allowing private companies to deploy technology capable of monitoring the movements of citizens was wrong.

What struck me was how quickly he reached that conclusion.

He didn't need to read a lengthy privacy policy. He didn't need to understand the technical architecture of an automated license plate recognition system.

Once he understood the basic concept, he had an instinctive concern about the privacy implications.

But I didn't want to stop there.

I wanted to challenge his position and give the opposing argument a fair opportunity.

But What If Flock Cameras Make Society Safer?

I followed up with a question designed to challenge his initial reaction.

What would he say to people who argue that Flock cameras make communities safer?

After all, there is a legitimate argument in favor of this technology.

Flock cameras can help law enforcement locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to criminal investigations, and potentially assist in finding missing persons.

Flock Safety itself reports that its technology supported more than one million criminal investigations and public safety incidents in 2025, although that company-reported figure should not be confused with one million independently verified crimes solved.

Those are potentially meaningful public safety benefits.

So I wanted to know whether these benefits changed his opinion.

His response was particularly interesting.

"Well if it's a police matter, that's completely different. Because the government does that already."

He went on to explain that his objection was specifically to private companies installing these systems and using the information collected to track citizens.

In his view, that would represent a fundamental violation of the privacy Americans should be entitled to enjoy.

His concern wasn't necessarily the existence of cameras. It was the question of who controls the information, what they are permitted to do with it, and who holds them accountable.

That distinction stayed with me.

The Difference Between Public Safety and Private Surveillance

The gentleman's argument raises an important question.

Should there be a meaningful difference between surveillance conducted by law enforcement and surveillance technology operated by private organizations?

Of course, government surveillance is not automatically free from abuse or privacy concerns. Police departments themselves must be held accountable for how they access, retain, and share information.

But government agencies are subject to legal requirements, public oversight mechanisms, and constitutional limitations that may not apply in the same way to private organizations.

Flock Safety maintains that its customers control access to their own camera data and decide whether to share that information with law enforcement. The company also states that it does not sell customer license plate data.

Those distinctions are important.

It would be inaccurate to suggest that Flock simply sells everyone's movements to the highest bidder.

However, the broader privacy question remains.

If technology allows organizations to collect and search records of people's movements, what safeguards should exist to prevent that capability from being misused?

Who should have access?

How long should the data be stored?

Should citizens know when these systems are operating in their communities?

And perhaps most importantly, should the public have a say before an extensive surveillance network is deployed around them?

These are not unreasonable questions. They are questions that deserve thoughtful answers.

Flock Cameras Are Already Across America

Here is the statistic that makes this conversation particularly concerning.

Flock cameras have already been deployed on a massive scale throughout the United States.

According to a November 2026 analysis from Pew Research Center, Flock Safety publicly reported operating more than 120,000 cameras across approximately 6,000 communities.

Independent mapping efforts have identified even larger numbers, with one researcher-led map listing as many as 175,000 Flock cameras nationwide.

The precise number remains difficult to verify, but estimates suggest the network may already exceed 150,000 devices.

That is an extraordinary footprint for technology that the gentleman I interviewed had never even heard of.

And that was perhaps the most revealing part of my entire experience.

I started wondering how many Americans regularly drive past Flock cameras without recognizing what they are.

How many understand what information is being recorded?

How many know who can search that information?

And how many would support the technology if someone explained exactly how it works?

I cannot claim that one conversation proves most Americans are unaware of Flock. It certainly doesn't.

But the exchange made me question whether public awareness has kept pace with the rapid expansion of this technology.

Are We Trading Privacy for the Promise of Safety?

I understand why people support technologies that promise to reduce crime.

Nobody wants their car stolen. Nobody wants dangerous criminals escaping accountability. And nobody wants law enforcement to lack useful tools when trying to find a missing child.

These are reasonable concerns.

But I also believe that public safety and personal privacy should not automatically be treated as mutually exclusive.

The fact that a technology can make society safer does not necessarily mean its use should be unlimited.

And the fact that surveillance can be helpful in certain circumstances does not mean every deployment is justified.

There needs to be a conversation about proportionality, transparency, and accountability.

At what point does a useful investigative tool become an infrastructure capable of monitoring an entire population?

And who gets to decide where that line is drawn?

I don't pretend to have every answer.

But after speaking with that gentleman in Imperial Beach, I became even more convinced that Americans deserve to understand the technologies being deployed in their communities.

My Biggest Takeaway From the Interview

What made this experience so fascinating wasn't simply that the gentleman opposed Flock cameras.

It was that he had formed no prior opinion because he didn't even know the technology existed.

Yet once I explained what Flock cameras were, he immediately recognized a potential conflict between technological advancement and individual privacy.

When I challenged his argument with the potential public safety benefits, he didn't abandon his position.

Instead, he drew a distinction between legitimate police investigations and the broader implications of private surveillance.

Whether you agree with him or not, I think his perspective deserves consideration.

Because this conversation was never really about one man in Imperial Beach.

It was about the possibility that surveillance technology is advancing faster than the public's understanding of it.

And if that is happening, we have a much bigger issue on our hands.

Americans should not have to discover the existence of a surveillance network by accident.

They should understand how it operates, what information it collects, and what protections exist before it becomes a permanent fixture of everyday life.

Ultimately, I left Imperial Beach with more questions than I arrived with.

And maybe that's a good thing.

Because before we can decide whether Flock cameras should exist, we should probably make sure Americans know what they are.

So I'll leave you with the same question I asked that gentleman:

Do you believe Flock cameras make America safer, or do they represent an unacceptable intrusion into our privacy?

I'd genuinely like to hear what you think.