In a year as chaotic, violent, and economically destructive as this one has been, it is interesting that, to many Americans, the great villain of 2026 is turning out to be a traffic camera.
But, indeed, we are seeing visceral, cross-partisan opposition to so-called Flock cameras—named after the leading manufacturer of these automated license plate readers—take hold in communities across the country. And that opposition is, to be sure, entirely legitimate.
Flock’s camera networks are based on the idea that, while it would obviously be illegal and unconstitutional for law enforcement at any and all levels to put GPS trackers in everyone’s cars, it would be legal for a cop standing on some street corner to report that they had seen a specific vehicle drive by if it later turned out that that car had either been stolen or used to commit a crime.
But, taking that idea that public observations are not violations of privacy, Flock and similar companies help set up networks of cameras that record and register the license plate, make and model, and identifiable details of every single passing vehicle into a timestamped and searchable national database. And, as more and more of these cameras are added to streets and parking lots all over the country, and they, therefore, get harder and harder to avoid, the data the government has access to becomes essentially indistinguishable from what they would have if there were government GPS trackers in all of our cars.
There are currently around 120,000 of these cameras across forty-nine states, with more being added every day. And the American people are not happy about it.
In a genuine grassroots movement spreading primarily through local Facebook groups and the like, with little coverage outside local media, concerned citizens are doing everything from pressuring local lawmakers to rescind their contracts with Flock Safety to donning masks and cutting the cameras down with electric saws.
And this opposition is starting to have some success. More than fifty jurisdictions have ended their relationships with Flock after local backlash. And, after Flock tried and failed for months to get the wider public to view organizations that track the location of these cameras as terrorists because some have used those locations to avoid, disable, or destroy some, the company announced last week that it was implementing several changes to try and defuse the public anger.
Starting next year, Flock says it plans to cut the default retention period for data stored on their system from 30 days down to 7 days, require its government clients to use the internal system for detecting unusual or potentially abusive searches, require all searches to be tied with a specific case code (with emergency exceptions getting automatically flagged for review), and a few other changes meant to at least appear like they’re addressing the public’s concerns. And Flock has also already removed all federal agencies from its nationwide search database in an earlier public concession.
It’s notable that a government contractor that does no direct business with the public feels this pressured by that public to change its behavior. But even more notable is how ineffective the normal propaganda that gets rolled out to justify these kinds of advancements in government surveillance has been this time around.
The familiar tropes that government officials are only gathering this kind of data on all of us because it’s crucial for our safety or that it only ought to bother us if we’re criminals with something to hide are not just falling on deaf ears, they’re being widely ridiculed.
That’s certainly, in part, because there have already been plenty of documented cases of police officers and government officials using the Flock database to track the activities of romantic partners, ex-partners, people now dating their ex-partners, and more. All of that, of course, constitutes warrantless government surveillance for the personal interest of the officials with access to the technology, without even the semblance of a legitimate investigation. There have also been several dangerous, nearly-life-threatening cases of drivers being pursued and held at gunpoint because Flock cameras mistakenly identified them as criminal suspects.
But what’s really driving the widespread rage is not how the cameras are currently being used, or misused. It’s how they could be used in the future. People across the political spectrum are concerned about this technology being used for everything from detecting stay-at-home order violations in a future pandemic to rounding up and deporting people because the government doesn’t like their political opinions.
This is a remarkably healthy mindset for the public to hold. Basically, don’t let the government grab power you wouldn’t trust your political enemies to wield.
But also, this is why the controversy surrounding Flock cameras has grown so large and why it’s quickly emerging as one of the major political issues ahead of the midterms. It’s not really about the specific workings of this one brand of automated license plate readers. It’s because the public’s presumption that our elites and institutions are acting in good faith has completely evaporated.
The American people do not trust the people in charge enough to be reassured by promises about how this new surveillance infrastructure will be used. And that is good. Because we should not trust the people in charge. They have, fortunately, made that very clear in recent years—which is why we’re seeing such a political revolt against incumbents.
But, going back, all the government power grabs that have brought us to this point—the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq, the banker bailouts, the insurance industry bailout known as Obamacare, the covid lockdowns, and more—all of it was only possible because enough of the public fell for the lie that the government was acting in their interest.
The fanatical opposition to Flock cameras is evidence that that lie isn’t working right now. Let’s hope that lesson is not easily unlearned.
This article was originally featured at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is republished with permission.
