flocks of what? Is something other than birds watching you?

flocks of what?

Published by

Aubrey Taylor, Editor

on

October 5, 2026

Public concern over Flock Cameras grows as they dominate our landscape. The issue isn’t just government surveillance, but that a single company, in collaboration with local and federal authorities, controls it. Are we entering a “1984” surveillance state, or is it harmless and necessary? Consider these points and decide for yourself.

But first…Definitions…

(source: Dictionary.com)

Surveillance:

a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect, prisoner, or the like. The suspects were under police surveillance.
continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information. video cameras used for covert surveillance.
attentive observation, as to oversee and direct someone or something.increased surveillance of patients with chronic liver disease.

Centralization:

the act or fact of centralizing; fact of being centralized.
the concentration of administrative power in a central government, authority, etc.
Chiefly Sociology.
1. a process whereby social groups and institutions become increasingly dependent on a central group or institution.
2. concentration of control or power in a few individuals.

Necessity:

something necessary or indispensable. food, shelter, and other necessities of life.
the fact of being necessary or indispensable; indispensability. the necessity of adequate housing.
an imperative requirement or need for something. the necessity for a quick decision.
Synonyms: demand
the state or fact of being necessary or inevitable. to face the necessity of testifying in court.
an unavoidable need or compulsion to do something. not by choice but by necessity.

Infringement:

an act that disregards an agreement or a right
synonyms: violation
type of actus reus, misconduct, wrongdoing, wrongful conduct
activity that transgresses moral or civil law
Example: Campaign groups have warned that the company’s products pose risks related to mass surveillance, infringements on individual freedoms and data protection. From Barron’s,
Jun. 16, 2026

I’m sure I’ve missed one or two, so please forgive the omission!

So what are the Flock cameras, and what is the reason for using them by the governmental entities?

Flock Cameras are concealed surveillance cameras that track license plates, vehicle make, color, condition, and unique identifiers using vehicle fingerprint technology. They operate with the “Falcon and Sparrow” system, an ALPR, or Automatic License Plate Reader, which captures and catalogs license plates, compares them to the National Crime Information Center database, and instantly alerts law enforcement to any matches related to suspected criminal activity.

Data collected by Flock Group, Inc., DBA (doing business as) Flock Safety, remains in their databases. The company claims it only reads license plates, but it also offers “Flock Form,” which enables police to search for individuals within an area using criteria like race, gender, clothing, height, tattoos, or political affiliation.

Drone surveillance is included in the tools available to police. While drone tracking isn’t new, it’s generally frowned upon and limited by privacy laws. It’s hard to feel comfortable knowing a camera drone is tailing you—it’s loud and intrusive, sounding like a swarm of angry bees.

A drone repeatedly flew over my property, even pausing to follow me in the countryside away from observers. When I stared at it, the operator stopped, hesitated, then flew off forever. To me, that was a clear privacy invasion on private property. Imagine how intrusive it would feel if, while grocery shopping in the city, a drone was following you for no apparent reason.

The product website claims success numbers with their tools, but initial impressions suggest these figures are low compared to the remaining unresolved crimes¹. Are these numbers accurate?

They are not authorized by those surveyed but are used freely by local and federal police without public disclosure. The system relies on AI to identify positive matches to alleged criminal activities. Law enforcement claims its purpose is to solve crimes, catch car thieves, find missing children, and disrupt gangs. However, the key question remains: Is this surveillance limited to actual crimes, or is it also tracking innocent people?

Is it truly private and used for the justified purposes proposed?

That is debatable. While law enforcement leaders and officials loudly proclaim successful crime stops and case closures through surveillance, some argue they’ve been targeted without cause or tracked due to objections to the tools’ use without public consent.

Northern Colorado Privacy Coalition has compiled only a partial list of cases where law enforcement has misused the Flock system and other surveillance tools. These abuses include stalking, harassment, running ALPR searches for agencies like ICE, DEA, and ATF, false theft allegations, driving stolen vehicles, racial profiling, and targeting individuals involved in peaceful protests. The list goes on.

In 2026, automotive journalist Joel Feder was surrounded by police due to a misreported stolen license plate². Initial reports claimed the Flock camera AI misread the plate, but a later investigation revealed the AI read it correctly; human error entered incorrect data, leading to Feder’s detention. He was test-driving the vehicle with proper paperwork, but the unresolved database error remained³. A similar incident in Colorado led to a vehicle owner being pulled over repeatedly due to an inability to update the database with correct information⁴.

Another man in 2024 had police draw a gun on him as he pulled into his apartment because the Flock, also, misread the license plate declaring it a match for a stolen vehicle⁵.

In 2026, a woman was falsely accused of stealing a package by Flock. Police trusted the Flock camera’s evidence—until it was proven wrong. Without her dashcam, Google Maps logs, and doorbell footage confirming she was at her tailor’s house during the theft, she would have been arrested for a crime she didn’t commit based solely on Flock’s accusation⁶.

There are far more false arrests and total dependence on the 99% accuracy of the Flock system than can be listed here.

Joel Feder said,

“Flock reads 20 billion plates a month, and they have a 99 — according to them — percent accuracy (rate). But 1% of 20 billion is like 200 million. That’s a lot of misreads every month.”³

So what has this to do with you?

Hopefully nothing. However, there’s an ongoing debate between law enforcement and privacy advocates over the escalating surveillance since President George W. Bush’s Patriot Act was enacted after 9/11⁷.

The question is whether such tools violate our First and Fourth Amendment rights—privacy and protection against unreasonable searches—by allowing intrusive data collection⁸. Many assume that collecting personal data is permissible, but every digital transaction—messages, emails, biometric scans (like airport facial recognition), purchases, and calls⁹—are recorded. Is this justified? Or do you believe it doesn’t matter if you’ve done nothing wrong¹⁰?

Do your own research. Determine if what’s presented is truth or lie. Then heed this warning from our nation’s past: