Flock cameras, which are automated license plate readers designed to photograph vehicles and gather details like license plates, make, model, and color, are being set up all over the United States. Supporters claim these cameras will aid in crime-solving and enhance public safety. But is that really the case?
Knox County, Tennessee Mayor Glenn Jacobs thinks otherwise. He contends that Flock cameras actually increase risks for Americans by subjecting them to constant monitoring, allowing the government to track their movements thoroughly.
In a recent episode of “Kibbe on Liberty,” Matt Kibbe spoke with Jacobs about his concerns regarding the implications Flock’s cameras have for personal privacy and the Fourth Amendment rights.
Jacobs remarks, “The more I look into it, the more we start to really dislike Flock cameras. They represent a serious threat to our privacy and the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment.”
Kibbe describes the situation as “Orwellian,” suggesting that such extensive surveillance might lead to a society reminiscent of China.
“What distinguishes this from China’s surveillance network?” he questions.
Jacobs proposes that the differences may be minimal. While Flock cameras are advertised primarily as license plate readers, he explains, “they encompass so much more.”
He elaborates, “With the Flock system, we’re not just collecting license plate numbers. Every vehicle that goes by is analyzed with artificial intelligence, creating a detailed profile.”
It’s not limited to license plates; data on make, model, color, and even specifics like roof racks and bumper stickers are compiled and stored for at least 30 days, depending on the agency’s policies. This data can then be accessed without a warrant, he adds.
The absence of clear rules surrounding Flock cameras raises additional concerns for Jacobs.
“In Tennessee, there aren’t any state laws, nor federal guidelines governing their use. This technology has been operating under the radar until now,” he states.
Public sentiment is another facet to think about. As citizens become more aware of Flock cameras, it seems likely that opposition will intensify.
“People really don’t like these systems. The more they learn about them, the more they express their disdain,” Jacobs notes.
For instance, it’s becoming evident that Flock’s cameras can gather enough information to create “movement patterns.” Jacobs considers this potential alarming.
He illustrates a hypothetical scenario: “They might conclude that I visit the shooting range weekly, possibly more frequently on Sundays. If I attend anti-coronavirus rallies during a pandemic, they could easily build a profile on me.”
He acknowledges that while there isn’t an expectation of privacy in public spaces, the Supreme Court has ruled against tracking individuals without a warrant—referring to the 2018 case Carpenter v. United States. He anticipates that eventually, the Supreme Court will rule against Flock’s camera system.
“But for now, it’s crucial for people to understand that these are not your ordinary license plate readers. They’re significantly different,” he warns.
If you’re interested in diving deeper into this topic, check out the full episode above.
