A New Kind of Surveillance: Flock Cameras in Boone

A Flock camera, owned and operated by Flock Safety. Powered by solar panels and utilizing AI, Flock cameras are an increasingly controversial safety measure. Photo credit: AP News

Aspen Hickman, Junior Editor and News Desk Lead for the Powderhorn

They look like any other security camera. And they are, in most ways. They take pictures of license plates and track the speed of drivers. Really, it’s nothing new. What is new is the ever-growing network of these searchable cameras that can be used to track anyone, anywhere.

Flock Safety, the main manufacturer of these state-of-the-art, AI-powered cameras, operates a huge database of more than 130,000 cameras across the U.S. that is accessible to police officers and security forces all over the country. Many view this network as a violation of their constitutional rights, while others think it is a necessary sacrifice for greater safety. 

“I think privacy protections for flock cameras are pretty muddled and gray,” said Sam Vining, a civics teacher at Watauga High School. “There's a lot of litigation right now in various circuit courts about it. So far, we haven't had a Supreme Court case to clarify it, but it's probably something that we’ll have in the next 10 years.”

10 years is a long time to wait for a ruling on a pressing issue, but the Supreme Court moves at its own pace. Until a case about Flock comes before them, there is no national ruling governing the use of these cameras. There is also little chance of a national law being passed through the House and Senate. 

“This is where the 10th Amendment comes in, and unfortunately, even though we as Americans, feel as though we have rights, the states also have powers to decide how they want to administer their criminal justice system,” said Vining. “So here in North Carolina, we actually do have state statutes that define the legality of what they call plate photography.”

North Carolina law states that the pictures taken by license plate cameras cannot be retained for longer than 90 days without a warrant. This law doesn’t cover traffic control cameras or video cameras, once again leaving Flock in a gray area. But legality isn’t the only issue with Flock. 

“[Flock cameras] are very unethical, because they can gather a lot of information about people who aren't involved in anything, your day-to-day person,” said Qynn Klamboroski, a sophomore at Watauga. “They can gather where you go to the bank, people you visit, your work schedule, and so on and so forth.”

Flock databases have caused problems in Watauga County already. As recently reported by The Watauga Democrat, a drug dealer based in Watauga colluded with a police officer from Mecklenburg County to use Flock’s database for illegal activity. Using footage recorded by Flock, they were able to identify the cars of undercover police officers so that the dealer would not sell to law enforcement. While both involved have been caught, this case illustrates the dangers of Flock. 

“What if, all of a sudden, we're looking at putting people in prison for political reasons? And they're going on people's social media and deeming what they're saying on social media isn't right,” said Jake Russolese, an Appalachian State student currently interning as a student teacher at Watauga. “That's all hypothetical, but I think that's what people are scared of is, what is the potential of these Flock cameras?”

Under the Patriot Act, passed after 9/11, the federal government has the right to surveil any suspected terrorist without a warrant. While passed with good intentions, the act leaves the door wide open to misuse of systems like Flock. 

“I think one interesting thing for me is the whole idea of the exchange of liberty for safety or safety for liberty,” said Russolese. “That's a big argument, outside of the whole Flock camera debate, that idea. That argument really falls in line with this idea with these cameras: could they be an attack on our essential liberties?”