Evanston orders Flock to remove reinstalled cameras

Where Flock Is Used & How to Find It

• Commenters list multiple ways to locate Flock and other ALPR cameras: OpenStreetMap overlays (deflock.me), EyesOnFlock, Flock “transparency” portals, FOIA aggregators, and local council minutes.
• Coverage is said to be very widespread (~5,000 communities), including many Bay Area and LA cities, inner-ring suburbs, and wealthier areas; some chains like Home Depot and Lowe’s reportedly deploy them broadly in parking lots.
• Crowd-sourced maps are noted as incomplete and often missing operators; cities also resist disclosing exact camera locations.

Evanston, Contracts, and State vs Federal Law

• The core local issue: Evanston is trying to terminate a multi‑year contract after Illinois’ Secretary of State found Flock let CBP access Illinois camera data in a pilot program contrary to state law, and allowed out‑of‑state searches for immigration cases.
• Debate centers on whether a clear state-law violation gives the city an unambiguous right to cancel, or whether Flock can argue it “cured” the breach and still deserves full payment.
• One side stresses rule-of-law and due process: the city’s cease-and-desist is an executive act; courts must decide. Others argue reinstalling cameras after being ordered to remove them is bad-faith and potentially criminal, not just a contract dispute.

Surveillance Power, Abuse Risks, and Corporate Behavior

• Ex-employee commentary describes Flock’s mission as “eliminate all crime” and its product as far beyond simple ALPR: detection by vehicle damage, stickers, racks, patterns of behavior, plus “suspicious behavior” alerts and data sharing between entities that may violate local rules.
• Many see this as “Minority Report-lite” mass surveillance, inherently prone to abuse by law enforcement, federal agencies, and hackers; prior misuse examples (e.g., officers stalking people) are mentioned.
• Supporters cite real crime-control benefits (retail theft, serious crimes), arguing cameras in private retail lots feel acceptable, though even some of them are uneasy about broader use and data retention.

Accountability, Punishment, and Civil Disobedience

• Strong sentiment that corporations and executives face far weaker consequences than ordinary people; proposals include escalating fines, bankruptcy, personal criminal liability for executives, even nationalization.
• Others warn against “fine ’em into oblivion” instincts as authoritarian and insist on predictable penalties and judicial oversight.
• A large subthread discusses vandalizing or disabling cameras (spray paint, plastic bags, lasers, jamming, cutting poles) as potential civil disobedience; several participants explicitly discourage dangerous methods (firearms, jammers) and emphasize legal and safety risks.

Broader Political & Ethical Concerns

• Many frame this as another step in an ongoing slide toward authoritarianism, feudalism, or corporate state power, where mass surveillance infrastructure—public or private—inevitably ends up “in the wrong hands.”
• Others argue ALPR-like tools are now a fact of life and can be justified if tightly regulated (short retention, strict limits), but acknowledge that such safeguards rarely exist in practice.
• A recurring theme: documenting the problem is not enough; people should engage in local politics (council meetings, boards, litigation) to roll back or constrain these systems.