An interactive map of Flock Cams
An open map of Flock automated license plate readers reveals how densely these cameras blanket many neighborhoods, prompting both privacy concerns and enthusiasm for their crime-fighting potential. Commenters describe how the data, sourced from OpenStreetMap, is incomplete but already sufficient to plan routes that avoid surveillance, while others note that law enforcement and retailers are rapidly expanding deployments. The thread weighs claims of crime reduction against documented abuses, the risk of mass, queryable tracking infrastructure, and ideas for legal, technical, and political pushback.
Map & Data Sources
- Deflock’s map is powered by OpenStreetMap; coverage is incomplete and sometimes stale (removed/repositioned cameras still shown, missing cameras in many areas).
- Users can add/edit cameras via OSM tools (MapComplete, EveryDoor, deflock itself) and even delete outdated ones.
- Some users report multiple markers at one location, sometimes reflecting multiple cameras or providers.
Camera Locations & Density
- Many report dense coverage in wealthy neighborhoods, big-box store parking lots (Home Depot, Lowe’s, Walmart), universities, and some parks/community centers.
- Others see only a few in their town, or only on certain roads or campuses.
- Presence of non-Flock ALPR vendors is noted but not mapped here.
Avoidance & Navigation Tools
- Several projects generate ALPR-avoiding routes (Big-B-Router, dontgetflocked.com, alprwatch).
- Users note limits: routes often impossible in dense areas and unknown cameras still capture drivers.
Perceived Benefits for Safety & Policing
- Pro‑camera comments emphasize:
- Easier identification of suspects, stolen vehicles, and wanted persons.
- Reduced need for high‑speed pursuits.
- Potential help in violent crimes, trafficking, Amber/Silver alerts, and retail theft.
- Some prefer automated systems over discretionary policing and are willing to trade privacy for perceived safety.
Privacy, Civil Liberties & Abuse
- Many see a de facto mass‑surveillance network: constant tracking of innocent drivers, centralized and queryable at scale.
- Documented abuses cited: officers using Flock data to stalk ex-partners or coworkers; use in immigration enforcement and against protesters/activists.
- Fears include future targeting of dissidents, dragnet use for minor offenses, and linkage to broader AI-driven profiling.
- Critics argue benefits are overstated, police often ignore property crime even with video, and Flock’s security/transparency are “abysmal.”
Law, Policy & Public Records
- In Washington state, courts have ruled Flock data public, triggering public-records strategies to pressure cities to drop the system; others expect legislatures to carve privacy-based exemptions.
- Draft legislation is discussed that would narrowly constrain permissible ALPR uses (stolen cars, missing/endangered persons, felony-related cases, specific traffic functions).
Economics & Incentives
- Counties can acquire cameras via grants requiring partial local match; traffic cameras also generate significant revenue in some places.
- Some suspect “public safety” rationales mask revenue or surveillance expansion motives; Flock markets crime‑solving impact (e.g., “10% of crime” claims), which are questioned.
Public Sentiment Split
- Enthusiasts welcome more cameras, especially after local crime experiences, and trust guardrails or better access controls could mitigate abuse.
- Opponents describe the map as “scary,” adjust their routes to avoid cameras, contemplate leaving high‑coverage cities, and argue the “juice isn’t worth the squeeze.”