When community leaders and local police departments discuss installing Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) like Flock Safety, the conversation almost always centers on solving crimes. But there is a massive blind spot in these discussions: our fundamental right to privacy.
Besides being a Constitutional Right in the United States, Privacy isn’t just a vague feeling—it is defined from a technology sense by the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs). These are the gold-standard guidelines used by federal agencies and privacy experts to ensure technology doesn’t trample on our civil liberties.
When we hold mass surveillance networks up to the light of the FIPPs, it becomes clear that systems like Flock Safety don’t just bend the rules of privacy—they break them entirely.
Here is how massive ALPR networks violate the core tenets of information privacy:
1. The Death of Data Minimization
The Principle: Organizations should only collect the absolute minimum amount of personal data necessary to achieve a specific goal. The Violation: ALPR networks operate on a model of mass, indiscriminate collection. To locate a single stolen vehicle, these cameras must capture, log, and store the location of every single vehicle that drives past. This flips data minimization on its head—collecting 100% of available data on innocent drivers to solve a fraction of a percent of crimes. You are treated as a suspect by default.
2. A Lack of Proportionality
The Principle: The scale and intrusiveness of a security measure must be proportionate to the threat it is trying to prevent. The Violation: Creating a searchable, nationwide database of innocent citizens’ daily movements—the routes we take to work, school, doctors, and places of worship—is wildly disproportionate to the crime of auto theft. The ability to retroactively track anyone’s historical movements is a level of surveillance traditionally reserved for high-level counterterrorism, not local neighborhood streets.
3. Unchecked Mission Creep (Purpose Limitation)
The Principle: Data collected for one specific, stated purpose should not be used for a different, unrelated purpose without your consent. The Violation: Flock cameras are almost always pitched to communities as a way to stop violent crime. However, because the data is pooled and easily searchable, its use inevitably expands. There are documented cases of ALPR networks being used for minor municipal code enforcement, enforcing neighborhood HOA rules, and cross-state tracking by out-of-jurisdiction agencies.
4. Zero Notice or Transparency
The Principle: Individuals have a right to know when their data is being collected, by whom, and for what purpose. The Violation: Unlike a police officer pulling you over or a security guard checking an ID, Flock cameras operate invisibly. A driver running errands may pass dozens of privately and publicly owned cameras—recording their timestamp and location into a centralized database—without ever being notified. Because private entities can buy cameras and instantly feed that data to the police, the public has almost no way of knowing where the surveillance begins or ends.
We Can Protect Our Community
Traditional surveillance requires probable cause before the tracking begins. Flock inverts this standard: they track everyone constantly, allowing authorities to search for probable cause retroactively.
We don’t have to accept dragnet surveillance as the default in our neighborhoods. We are organizing a grassroots effort to push back against invasive tracking and protect our local privacy.
Visit deflockmedway.com to learn more about the initiative. Join the Event in Facebook for upcoming town meeting which will have a warrant article to ban ALPR systems and Flock cameras in Medway. Together, we can keep our community safe without sacrificing our civil liberties.