Flock Surveillance - Somebody’s Watching Me

Breanna Santos

Anchor Contributor

If you think that I’ll be talking about a hit song featuring Michael Jackson, you’re wrong.

Flock Safety is a public safety operating system that helps law enforcement reduce crime through

computer-driven security cameras. The company uses automated license plate readers (ALPRs)

to do so. The process is pretty simple: when a car passes a Flock camera, the computer reads the

license plate and stores it in the Flock database. According to their website, they aim to “deter

threats, strengthen cases, and reduce crime on your properties.”

This all sounds great, right? A surveillance company whose goal is to prevent crime

before it happens. Given their collaboration with law enforcement it is game set; however, it

raises significant privacy concerns for individuals: Just how secure is Flock? How long do they

keep said data? And who the heck is it being shared with?

Flock boldly claims on its website that it does not share its data with federal agencies,

such as ICE. They also deny the existence of back-door and side-door access which are illegal

methods that allow easy data sharing with federal agencies. Despite this, the University of

Washington's Center for Human Rights found that in their state Flock's organizational

customers have secretly shared their data with federal agencies or with state law enforcement on their behalf. ICE then utilized this to perform deportation crackdowns.

This does not stop here; in Texas County police used Flock surveillance to follow a

woman who had an abortion out of state. They posed it as a missing person case and a “death

investigation,” and that this was all about the woman’s “safety” but in reality they were

practically stalking her, looking at over 80,000 Flock ALPR cameras to do so. According to the

Johnson County District Attorney's Office, they had no authority to charge her for having an

abortion, especially when it was not done in Texas. But despite this, they worked hard to locate

her. This is very scary and disturbing, as it is not only a federal problem but also a state problem.

With abortion and immigrant rights being a huge issue across the US, using illegal incentives as

explained provokes great constitutional concerns.

What does this mean for Rhode Island? According to the ACLU, the state has about 280

Flock cameras throughout. Cities such as Barrington, Little Compton, and most recently South

Kingston have rejected Flock entirely. In Providence, which ranks second in the number of Flock

cameras, surveillance protocols have been of the utmost importance ever since the Brown

University shooting. While giving up our privacy is a common defense mechanism when tragic

events occur, given that the intended purpose is not what it seems, how much should we give up?

We need to be aware of Flock and protect our right to privacy as much as possible.

To advocate, the Rhode Islanders for Personal Privacy is a grassroots organization that

values privacy rights on the internet. They host educational meetings on Flock safety issues and

participate in town council meetings to oppose Flock funding and contract renewals. Another

group, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, participates in litigation and

education and proposes bills that aim to safeguard people’s rights.

In recent news Governor Dan McKee has temporarily paused Flock camera production

for 60 days. Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies have strongly opposed most efforts to

propose bills to regulate Flock. Despite this, joining these groups to argue in front of town councils will help tackle that barrier to maintaining our personal privacy.