What is the controversy about Flock cameras?

Update of 8/14/2026: The company behind Flock is already responding. "Flock Sets New Safeguards in Face of Backlash

Flock Safety, the company behind more than 120,000 license plate cameras nationwide, announced sweeping reforms Thursday [8/13/2026] following a bipartisan backlash over mass surveillance and police misuse of its network. The biggest change: Images will now be deleted after seven days instead of 30. [This is an extremely short period. Need to be raised.]

By the end of 2026, [police?] officers must attach a case number to every search, and a system that flags abnormal activity becomes mandatory, locking users out until an administrator reviews. ..." (The Flyover)

I have been noticing for some time that Flock cameras (aka automated license plate readers (ALPRs)) have become news items and subject of debates/controversies/vandalism etc.

I suspect with the help of machine learning and computer vision these systems have become quite capable over the last 10 years or so.

Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages/harms? As a classical liberal, I would tend to say yes at this time.

Probably, these cameras make unruly, aggressive or drunk drivers behave better. Thereby saving lives. E.g. in residential communities these cameras may make e.g. non resident drivers (deliveries, visitors etc.) more cautious.

Probably, these data can be essential tools for law enforcement to e.g. more quickly solve crimes and catch criminals or frequent offenders and so on.

Of course, the use of those data require substantial oversight to prevent abuse, misuse, or innocent individuals getting suspected etc.!

Another issue would be how strict or aggressive law enforcement is based on these data. A matter for legislators and the executive branch to handle.

According to Google Search:
"Flock cameras are automated license plate reading (ALPR) and vehicle surveillance systems made by Flock Safety.

They capture images of passing cars, logging the license plate, make, model, color, and unique features like bumper stickers or dents, and store this data in a searchable network used by law enforcement, businesses, and HOAs [homeowner associations, residential communities].

How Flock Cameras Work

Data Capture: Solar- or battery-powered cameras snap photos of every vehicle passing in public view, recording time, direction, and specific vehicle characteristics.
Cloud Database: The images and metadata upload to a cloud network that allows police to search vehicle tracking data across multiple jurisdictions.
Retention Limits: Data is typically set to auto-delete after 30 days by default, unless flagged for an active investigation. ..."

Here is one of the latest, respective news articles that triggered my curiosity/attention to this subject:
College student accused of destroying Flock cameras — and the community comes out in droves to defend him | Blaze Media

Why not more online facial age estimation to distinguish children from adults?

I bet the technology could be improved!

As a safeguard, facial age estimation ought to be clearly separated from personal identification or login requirements! This could be achieved by e.g. third party providers who do nothing else but facial age estimation.

There are other means of age verification available too in the digital age. Why is e.g. my Google account not age verified! Google are you paying attention!

I bet privacy concerns (like the article below) are overblown here! Why would a selfie video be necessary? Does not a close up photo of your eyes/face suffice.

For example, porn websites could use it to keep children away, but not adults.

"Online facial age estimation is moderately reliable for broad categories like telling adults from children, but it is imprecise for guessing exact numbers. Top algorithms from groups like the National Institute of Standards and Technology have a mean absolute error rate of about 2 to 3 years, making them much better than average human guesses, but still prone to error based on lighting, skin care, and camera quality." (Google Search)

"... However, this is quickly shifting a broad policy problem into a biometric one, where access to ordinary online services can depend on literally showing your face [???]. ...

While facial age estimation may offer platforms a convenient way to respond to youth online safety demands, that convenience comes with serious privacy costs. Required facial scans lower the baseline of privacy for everyone, especially teens, and create a regime where access to everyday social spaces depends on individuals surrendering sensitive information about their faces and, in many cases, their identities. ...

Meta’s implementation of Yoti, a digital identity and age assurance company, on Instagram and Facebook shows how this works.

If Instagram believes an account holder is under 18 years old and the user tries to change that, it can send that user to Yoti for analysis of a selfie video [???].Yoti then estimates whether the person appears to be over 18 and sends that result back to Meta.

Its tests have expanded across the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, and similar flows have begun appearing on Facebook in Australia. Yoti also presents facial age estimation as part of a broader age assurance system that can include document-based checks, while highlighting that it estimates age rather than identifying the person. ..."

Protecting teens online shouldn't require mandatory facial scans for digital users "While facial age estimation offers a convenient way to respond to youth online safety demands, the tool comes with serious privacy costs [???]."

UK government scraps plans for digital ID cards after millions of Brits opposed

Good news! Some lovely British traditions and customs die hard!

Are we dealing with Luddites or do we need better personal privacy protections in the digital age?

Waw this digital ID scheme another one of those failures/blunders of previous PM Keir Starmer?

"The U.K.’s incoming prime minister Andy Burnham has confirmed the U.K. government is scrapping a controversial digital ID card scheme announced last year by the country’s previous leader. ...

The plan to roll out digital identity cards was introduced by the former prime minister Keir Starmer, who argued that state-issued IDs would crack down on migrants working illegally and would modernize access to government services. ...

Millions of Brits had opposed the plan for mandatory digital ID cards, leading to the second-largest public parliamentary petition on record, gathering close to 3 million signatures rejecting the plan. Critics said that the introduction of ID cards would enable surveillance. ..."

UK government scraps plans for digital ID cards after millions of Brits opposed | TechCrunch

Von der Leyens Marsch in die digitale Diktatur: Wie die EU alle Bürger kontrollieren will

Eine hysterische Schlagzeile oder was ist dran?

Wenn es so schlimm ist werden die Bürger der EU hoffentlich protestieren!

Von der Leyens Marsch in die digitale Diktatur: Wie die EU alle Bürger kontrollieren will "Die Zeit ist gekommen: Von der Leyen legt die Axt an das freie Internet. Ihre Alters-App zwingt jeden Bürger zur Identifizierung und errichtet die technische Infrastruktur einer digitalen Diktatur, in der Brüssel über Zugang und Ausschluss entscheidet. Das Ende von Anonymität, Meinungsfreiheit und Privatsphäre ALLER Bürger im Netz."

New Travesty Of Data Protection In The European Union

Posted: 12/24/2014

Trigger

Just read this German article “Auch für private Überwachungskameras gilt der Datenschutz Wer an seinem Haus zum Schutz vor Einbrechern eine Kamera anbringt, muss sich sehr genau mit dem Datenschutz auseinandersetzen. Denn eine grundsätzliche Ausnahme gibt es nicht - hat der Europäische Gerichtshof in Luxemburg nun entschieden.” This article is about a recent judgment by the European Union Court of Justice (link to press release dated 12/11/2014; Case C-212/13).

Please read the comments as well by readers of the above article! Readers have overwhelmingly expressed how absurd this judgment is and how it defies common sense!

Brief Background

A homeowner installed surveillance cameras around his property after he and his families suffered several attacks on their property. Next time, these cameras caught the perpetrators in the act. The homeowner handed the videotapes over to the police, which apprehended the criminals.

Criminals claimed it was illegal under European data protection laws to shoot these videos without their consent. The appropriate data protection authority of that country agreed and fined the homeowner for illegally taping the event, because one of the cameras also filmed a “public footpath”.

Common Sense

Clearly, these surveillance cameras in this case served primarily the purpose of passive self-defense from bodily harm or property damage. There was apparently no indication of any kind that the homeowner used the video footage for any other purpose. One would think that such self-defense would trump excessive data protection laws.

If you read the press release of the EU Court of Justice you begin to think these judges are far removed from any reality.

German Domestic Security Agency Competes With NSA

Posted: 8/7/2014

Just read “Heimliche Handy-Ortung Verfassungsschutz verschickt Zehntausende „stille SMS“ Mit sogenannten „stillen SMS“ versucht der Verfassungsschutz, Personen zu orten und Bewegungsprofile von Verdächtigen zu erstellen. Mehr als 50.000 Kurzmitteilungen wurden in den vergangenen sechs Monaten verschickt.” (German language)

According to this article the German Domestic Intelligence Service (Bundesverfassungsschutz or Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) has been using more than 50,000 of silent/hidden text messages to profile or track the movements of persons in Germany  just in the first six months of 2014.

Similar, the German FBI (Bundeskriminalamt) also uses this technology on a large scale. The German border protection service (Bundesgrenzschutz) would not even disclose its use of it.

Were the German officials just hypocrites when they blamed the NSA?