As with data centers, the debate over Flock cameras—the nationwide network of cameras that record the license plate numbers and other characteristics of passing vehicles—is playing out across the country, and across Pennsylvania.
Flock Safety, the surveillance technology company behind the cameras, is under scrutiny from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, civil liberties advocates, and citizens. Thousands of police agencies can use Flock data to support investigations. Advocates call it an important crime-fighting tool. Critics call it unnecessary mass surveillance. (Have I Been Flocked allows you to check to see if your license plate has been scanned, though its dataset is incomplete.)
More than 50 agencies or jurisdictions have canceled, suspended, or rejected a contract or deactivated their cameras since the beginning of the year, according to a tracker maintained by DeFlock, a grassroots group formed to track the use of the license plate reader technology and push back against it. Cameras around the country have also been vandalized.
As public sentiment sours on the automatic license plate readers and lawmakers in Harrisburg are introducing legislation to curtail their use across the commonwealth, we asked our newsletter readers: Do Flock cameras make you feel safer—or more watched?
Here’s what they had to say (answers have been edited for length and clarity):
“I agree that Flock cameras help the police solve crimes. I also agree that it seems like a ‘Big Brother’ issue, which I hate. The problem is the access to the data that individuals with ill intent have. It could be a curious ex-boyfriend cop, a hacker, a political foe, etc. So, I’m against Flock cameras.” — Byron, Chester County
“By all means keep these cameras on! There are many pros and cons, like almost everything in life, but the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns. No need to worry about privacy if you’re obeying our laws.” — Billie, Montour County
“Many residents have cameras at their house and can see the people taking a stroll/run down their street or those delivering packages. This can also be considered an invasion of privacy but that is acceptable and criminals have been caught with home cameras. So, why not let the police do their job with a camera? If you’re not disobeying the law, then no issue.” — Donna Kreitzer, York County
“There is no question that universal monitoring can play a role in crime prevention and tracking of alleged perpetrators, but at what cost? Widespread use of Flock cameras represents a massive violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. We have already seen how people in law enforcement have abused their access to this technology to pursue personal interests. It would be no stretch to see such systems being abused to track anyone the government considers malefactors or enemies, activists organizing for political purposes, women seeking abortions, members of the opposition party doing anything at all. The benefits are real, but the cost in our personal liberty is too high.” — Will Byrnes, Wilkes-Barre
“Benjamin Franklin said it best: ‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’ And I believe Flock cameras make us LESS safe. We are being surveilled by law enforcement with no cause and no warrant. Cops are using it to stalk women. Tracking ex-partners, abortion patients, and protesters without legal basis—even to track women they find “attractive.” A database of over 100 cases compiled by the Institute for Justice documents misidentifications, wrongful stops, and misuse of Flock’s nationwide network. These cases show the use of Flock cameras have caused wrongful arrests, detentions, and abuse.” — Elizabeth Henderson, Beaver County
“I like them. Our town caught an arsonist due to the license plate cameras. I’m not concerned about my privacy—anyone can see my license plate anyway. The only people who should worry are people who are doing something that they shouldn’t. Simple I know, but that’s my opinion.” — Jeannette S., Telford
“They absolutely do not make me feel safer, especially as a woman. They put our communities at risk and violate our rights. They don’t stop crime, they cause it. Countless stories of police officers using flock cameras to stalk their ex-partners, even an innocent woman in Florida being thrown in jail after a flock camera wrongly identified her car.” — Mekala Joy, Cumberland County
“Flock cameras and similar ones definitely makes society safer. They’re used to solve crime all the time. However, there needs to be stricter regulations in the use of the cameras by law enforcement and other investigative entities that have access to it.” — Chris, Allegheny County
“I feel it is Big Brother government overreach to have constant surveillance and it makes me feel less safe, especially given the current GOP administration that doesn’t even obey the law!” — Beth Brill, Chester County
“More watched! Automatic license plate readers are fine for police work. It’s the private ownership of the company and the sharing of this data that is not okay.” — Jim Pell, Monroe County
“I don’t feel safe with these cameras on the increase. It’s not the technology that worries me. It’s that way too often we cannot trust those who have access to them. We need to put a lid on the use of these. I support banning them.” — Gail S., St. Marys
“Less protected. They’ve become technological surveillance and can be used against, not in support of, the public.” — Teri Corso, Monroe County
“I don’t have a problem with cameras in public areas, per se. It’s just the amount and type of data the Flock cameras capture from people just going about their daily lives that I have a problem with. And the fact that all the personal data is too easily compromised by people with bad intent. Who gets access? Who can access it without permission for ill intent? And how much access does Flock have to the data? What’s Flock’s data protection plan? There are just too many variables and too many ways for individuals’ privacy to be breached. Nobody wants to be spied on. It’s creepy.” — Dayna DiRienzo, Allegheny County
“I may be naïve, but I’m just not sure how someone knowing that I’ve passed a particular intersection violates my Fourth Amendment rights. I think the fact that they have helped solve crimes far out weighs any potential problems.” — Karen Commings, Dauphin County
“Flock cameras do not make me feel safe and should not be used without a court order. I am concerned that the software will be abused and will do more harm to innocent civilians.” — Peter Lien, Philadelphia
“This Flock program is just another step towards a fascist police state. We should not be monitored as to our comings and goings. This program keeps a record of where you travel to and from and it can be used for nefarious purposes. Anyone who values their freedom and liberty should speak out loudly against this program. This is much more than traffic control.” — Michael, Lackawanna County
“Flock cameras are an invasion of privacy and are open for more abuse than for benefit.”
— Joanna Trombley, Chester County
“Please ban these cameras. They may be of some assistance to law enforcement, but the possibility of misuse is too great. No one knows what happens to the collected data, and no matter where it is stored, it can be hacked. Just the possibility of estranged partners being able to track their ex-partners is enough reason to do away with this invasive tool.” — Edward Hackett, Phoenixville
“Flock cameras make me feel more watched. The system can easily aggregate data so that it knows a person‘s movements throughout their day. That is simply not necessary. I do not want anyone to know where myself or any of my family members are all the time. That is a police state not a democracy.” — Colette Baruth, Delaware County
“Definitely a case of governmental overreach. The idea that we’re all being watched, regardless of whether a crime has been committed or not, seems quite excessive.” — Elise M., Pittsburgh
