Questions people actually ask

That's how it's sold, but it logs everyone, not suspects. An EFF study of California agencies found only about 0.05% of the data collected was relevant to a crime at the time it was captured. The other 99.95% is ordinary people going about their day.

Because it isn't about hiding. It's about who gets to track every driver, all the time, with no warrant and no public vote. A record of everywhere you drive, held by a private company and shared out of state, is worth caring about no matter how clean your record is.

Two real differences: choice, and who's watching. Your phone is yours. You chose to carry it, and you can turn it off, leave it home, or shut off location. These cameras give you none of that. The law makes you show a plate, and there's no way to tell the network not to log you. Your phone's location data also has some legal protection: the Supreme Court's Carpenter ruling makes police get a warrant for it. Courts have mostly let police read plates without one, and that data feeds a government network thousands of agencies can search. The point isn't that nothing tracks you now. It's that this one is run by the government, you never agreed to it, and you can't opt out.

No. It reads the plate, but it also logs your car's make, model, color, and distinctive features, plus the exact time and place, and builds a profile of your vehicle over time. Because the cameras are networked, that adds up to a record of where you drive, not a single snapshot. Flock's own training videos describe tracking a vehicle "from location to location to location."

They're small, often solar-powered cameras mounted on a pole by the road. Each one photographs every passing vehicle, software turns the plate into text, and it's uploaded to a searchable database that police across the country can query. No one has to be watching; it logs everyone automatically.

The usual default is 30 days, then it's deleted, unless it's flagged for an investigation, in which case it's kept longer. But 30 days is a setting, not a legal limit, and it's plenty of time for an out-of-state agency to pull it. That's why we push for a retention limit written into the contract, not left to a default someone can change.

No, and that's the heart of the problem. The law requires you to display a plate, and there's no way to tell the system not to log you. You're in it whether you agree or not, which is exactly why this should be a public decision, not a quiet contract.

No, and we don't suggest it. Covering, tinting, or obscuring your plate is illegal in most states and can bring fines or worse, and it would hand the other side an easy way to dismiss us. The real fix isn't dodging one camera; it's changing the policy through a public vote. If you just want to know where the cameras are, the DeFlock map shows them.

Usually not at the local level. How long the data is kept, who it's shared with, and how it's used are often completely unregulated. That's exactly what we push to fix.

Potentially hundreds of police agencies in other states through the national network, and it has been reached on behalf of ICE. Some departments didn't even realize how widely their own data was being searched until it came to light.

No. We want accountability, a public vote, and real rules. Many departments use these cameras only because neighboring towns do. Plenty of officers and chiefs have their own doubts about them.

Completely. Records requests, public comment, petitioning to get an item on the agenda, and votes are exactly how local government is supposed to work. We are lawful and nonviolent, always.

No. It's illegal, and it loses the fight by handing the other side a story and getting good people arrested. We win in the open. See How We Win.

Add your name, print a flyer, come to a meeting, or file a records request. Start small. Head to Take Action and we'll help you find your footing.