Last reviewed: September 29, 2026
DeFlock Metro Detroit has a clear position.
We want networked mass vehicle-surveillance systems removed and not renewed.
You do not have to begin with our conclusion.
The resources below include criticism of Flock, legal analysis, examples of legitimate investigative use, balanced reporting and Flock Safety’s own explanation of its position.
Watch. Read. Check the sources. Decide what you think.
Help spread the word.
If you are ready to help somebody else take a first look, we built a simple sharing toolkit with ready-to-post starting points for Facebook, Nextdoor, Instagram, X, Threads, Pinterest, Reddit, Bluesky, email and text, plus short-form video talking points and downloadable social graphics in platform-friendly sizes.
Use it as a starting point, then make the message sound like you.
Watch the video library.
Our dedicated video page brings together eight useful starting points: accessible explainers, legal analysis, reporting, an organizing case study and an example of investigative work that does not depend on mass tracking.
The first three featured videos are:
- We Got Rid of Mass Surveillance (and You Can Too) — a practical account of residents organizing after installation, including how a Flock item moved through a consent agenda.
- The Flock Cameras Problem Is Getting Worse — a fast-moving overview of why the issue has entered mainstream public discussion.
- Flock Cameras: What Your City Isn’t Telling You — a legal and civic overview of the network, Fourth Amendment questions and local decision points.
Watch all eight embedded videos →
Hear Flock Safety’s argument directly.
If we are going to oppose the system, residents should be able to see how the company describes it too.
Flock emphasizes crime-solving benefits, limited retention, individual user accounts, required search reasons, audit logs, encryption, agency-controlled sharing and its position that the platform should not be characterized as mass surveillance.
We disagree with important parts of Flock’s conclusion.
You should still be able to read the company’s argument without relying on our summary of it.
Flock Safety Privacy & Trust ↗
Flock Safety products and platform ↗
Then compare those claims with government records, audits, independent reporting, documented misuse and the capabilities described in Flock’s own product materials.
Compare the assurances with documented events.
Our dedicated evidence guide puts common claims next to the strongest records we have found so far: people-search capabilities, sensitive private-camera feeds used in demonstrations, exposed Condor video, company demo searches involving real cameras, protest-related queries, cross-jurisdictional investigations, personal misuse, data preservation and Metro Detroit’s own sensitive-placement dispute.
It also marks the limits of the evidence. For example, an exposed Condor deployment is not proof that Flock’s central cloud was breached, and a camera appearing near a critic does not by itself prove retaliation.
Read: Flock Claims vs. the Public Record →
Read civil-liberties criticism too.
The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation have published substantial work on automated license plate readers, location privacy and government surveillance.
They are advocacy organizations, not neutral referees.
That does not make their evidence useless.
The same rule applies here as it does to vendor material:
Know who is talking, then check what supports the claim.
American Civil Liberties Union ↗
Electronic Frontier Foundation ↗
Independent reporting matters.
Some of the strongest information about ALPR systems comes from journalists obtaining:
- audit records;
- search histories;
- contracts;
- internal communications;
- government investigations;
- and court records.
Useful reporting has come from national and local organizations including PBS NewsHour, Reuters, WIRED, KQED, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and local newspapers or television stations doing original reporting.
We value reporting that tells us:
- what happened;
- what the underlying records show;
- what police or the vendor said in response;
- and what remains uncertain.
Read the research on effectiveness.
The effectiveness question is more complicated than either side’s easiest slogan.
ALPR systems are highly efficient at scanning plates and can clearly help in particular investigations.
Older rigorous studies found mixed evidence for broader crime-prevention effects, while newer research on fixed Flock networks provides meaningful evidence of reduced motor-vehicle theft in some jurisdictions.
That still leaves the policy question:
Does the benefit justify the cost, errors, sharing, privacy impact and mass collection involved?
Read: Do ALPRs Work? What the Evidence Actually Says →
Be careful with viral surveillance content.
A dramatic title does not make a claim wrong.
A calm title does not make it right.
Before relying on a video, post or article, ask:
- What is the actual claim?
- What source supports it?
- Does the creator show or link the underlying record?
- Are allegations being described as established facts?
- Are vendor capabilities being confused with local use?
- Is one technical failure being presented as though every system always fails?
- Is one successful investigation being presented as proof the system is necessary everywhere?
- Is a legal argument being presented as though a court already ruled on it?
That same standard applies to material supporting our position.
Useful does not mean unbiased.
Flock wants to sell its system.
Police departments may want to keep a tool they value.
Civil-liberties organizations oppose surveillance.
Activists want cameras removed.
Journalists choose stories they believe matter.
YouTube creators want people to watch.
Bias does not automatically make information false.
It means the evidence matters more than the label attached to the speaker.
We are not opposed to cameras or technology in general.
There are legitimate uses for cameras and modern security technology.
Private camera ecosystems can raise their own serious privacy and consent questions, particularly when they connect to law-enforcement access. That is broader than this campaign’s central focus.
Our objection is to systems that routinely:
- record ordinary vehicles;
- attach time and location information;
- store those observations;
- make them searchable later;
- connect observations across many cameras;
- share access across organizations;
- and increasingly use software to identify patterns and relationships.
We are not opposed to cameras or technology. We are opposed to turning ordinary movement into a searchable mass-surveillance database.
Security and privacy are not opposites.
We can support crime investigation, good police work, forensics, warrants, targeted surveillance, relevant security footage, lawful open-source investigation and modern technology while still saying:
Do not build a searchable location network around everybody.
How we choose what to recommend
This is intentionally a curated page rather than a giant link directory.
A useful addition needs to contribute something distinct, such as:
- legal analysis;
- technical explanation;
- a law-enforcement perspective;
- investigative alternatives;
- rigorous effectiveness research;
- a documented case study;
- or meaningful evidence about how the technology works.
If a source is worth recommending publicly, we should be able to explain why.
Understand the campaign boundary
We are not campaigning against every camera or every use of technology. Our focus is routine, networked, searchable tracking of ordinary vehicle movements by or for government.
Read: What This Campaign Covers →
Flock’s product line also includes acoustic detection and live video that can connect with ALPR observations. Our sourced guide separates documented capability from speculation and explains the additional risks.
Read: Beyond License Plates — Raven, Condor & FlockOS →
Read: Flock Nova, Personal Data & Private Cameras →
Leonardo/ELSAG also markets SignalTrace, formerly EOC Plus, to collect supported broadcast Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and RFID signals and correlate recurring device groups with time, location and LPR observations. Our guide separates the vendor’s documented claims from technical limits and the still-unverified Metro Detroit deployment question.
Read: SignalTrace, Wireless Devices & Metro Detroit →
Read: Flock Claims vs. the Public Record →
Ready to share what you learned?
Reading is useful. A local campaign eventually needs people to notice the issue, understand why it matters and know where to begin.
Our campaign-materials page includes an evergreen Metro Detroit flyer pack in full-page, half-page and quarter-page formats, downloadable sticker artwork, municipality-specific handouts where the facts support them, and guidance for lawful printing and distribution.
You do not need to become an expert before you help someone else take a first look.
Browse flyers, stickers, logos and campaign materials →
Researching a local system?
If your municipality is considering an ALPR purchase, start before the contract becomes infrastructure. If the system is already operating, start with the current agreement and the next nonrenewal window.
My City Is Considering Flock. What Do I Do? →
My City Already Has Flock. What Do I Do? →
For existing programs, the public transparency portal and written ALPR policy can answer useful questions when read carefully.
How to Read a Flock Transparency Portal →
What Does Michigan Law Say About ALPR? →
ALPR Hits, Traffic Stops & False Matches →
How We Research Your Community →
Need help decoding the terminology?
Contracts and product pages can become acronym soup quickly.
Our plain-English glossary explains common ALPR terminology, Flock product names, sharing language and contract terms.
Open the ALPR & Flock Glossary →
Follow the system behind the camera.
Understanding the hardware is only part of the job.
Contracts, sharing permissions, search capabilities and renewal terms explain how the system operates and how it can end.