TL;DR: Flock is not merely a license plate camera company; it is part of a surveillance network connecting private companies, governments, and law enforcement. The central problem is the lack of transparency and public participation.
Resistance to Flock does not come from the company alone. It stems from a network of private companies, governments, and law enforcement agencies that prioritizes secrecy over transparency.
When automatic license plate readers are installed along roads with almost no public involvement in the decision-making process, researchers, journalists, and civil rights groups step in to investigate and push society to confront questions about privacy more clearly.
Flock Cameras and the Quietly Expanding Surveillance Network
Flock is not the only company in this system, as Axon and Motorola are also developing similar camera networks. What deserves attention, therefore, is not just the cameras themselves, but the relationships among private companies, governments, and law enforcement agencies.
Benn Jordan continues to report security vulnerabilities directly to Flock while calling on the company to address them concretely. The illustration should depict automatic license plate readers connected to a surveillance network, without adding operational details not specified by the sources.
From Atlanta Musician to Flock Investigator
Benn Jordan is a musician who already enjoys taking things apart and thinking like a hacker. Around two years ago, he began noticing large numbers of cameras in Atlanta, which has the highest concentration of Flock cameras per square mile. He initially thought they were ordinary traffic cameras.
After that, Jordan investigated what the cameras could do and began examining their security vulnerabilities. His hobby of taking systems apart gradually became an investigation focused increasingly on Flock and government transparency.
Flock is a company that makes automatic license plate readers, or ALPRs, along with the software that powers this type of surveillance system. It is therefore not just a roadside camera, but part of a data network connected to government and law enforcement.
The important point is that Flock is not alone in the market. Axon and Motorola are also quietly building similar networks. Focusing on just one company could therefore cause us to miss the bigger picture of the surveillance industry.
If it were up to me, I would suggest viewing Flock as the leading figure in this issue, while Axon and Motorola are players expanding behind it—not treating each company as an entirely separate story.
From Overlooking Traffic Cameras to a Nationwide Investigation
| Factor | What People Might Assume | What Benn Found |
|---|---|---|
| Function | Traffic camera | Automatic license plate reader (ALPR) |
| Role | Roadside equipment | Surveillance system affecting privacy |
| Investigation focus | Barely questioned | Security vulnerabilities and transparency |
Benn began noticing these cameras in Atlanta around two years ago. At first, he thought they were traffic cameras, but his research revealed that they were ALPRs and led to a nationwide investigation.
By making videos and investigating security vulnerabilities, he became a witness in a Senate hearing. The issue shifted from “What do the cameras do?” to questions about who controls the data and how transparent the government is.
When Cameras Become Personal
ALPR cameras do more than record vehicles; they create a data network connected to surveillance. When Benn discovered security vulnerabilities, he chose to report them to Flock rather than simply exposing them to attack the company.
The major problem, therefore, concerns access to the data. This network could potentially be made available for police use without society having a say from the beginning. At the same time, the government lacks transparency, meaning people only learn that these cameras exist and what they can do after the system is already in use.
Flock Does Not Stand Alone
Flock is the name receiving the most scrutiny, but the sources indicate that Axon and Motorola are also quietly building similar surveillance networks. This issue should therefore not end with criticism of a single company.
| Factor | Flock | Axon | Motorola |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role in the system | ALPR and software manufacturer | Competitor building a similar network | Competitor building a similar network |
| How it is discussed | Intensely criticized and investigated | Mentioned as quietly moving forward with system development | Mentioned as quietly moving forward with system development |
| Performance data | Not specified by the sources | Not specified by the sources | Not specified by the sources |
What Benn Believes Flock Got Wrong
Benn believes Flock’s mistakes involve not only its surveillance system, but also its attitude toward critics. He describes this attitude as a major public relations failure that made the company an easy target for criticism.
Pros
- +Benn continues to communicate directly with Flock
- +He reports security vulnerabilities to the company when he finds them
Cons
- −Its attitude toward critics has triggered a strong backlash
- −It has not communicated adequately about transparency
Benn also speaks with Garrett Langley, Flock’s CEO, viewing their communication as a path toward addressing tangible surveillance problems rather than an attempt to destroy a single company.
The Price Society Pays for a Lack of Transparency
When a surveillance system is funded by taxpayers but the public is not informed or involved in decision-making, concerns go beyond whether a company is making a profit. They extend to giving police access to the camera network without guarantees that this power will not be used beyond its proper limits.
Resistance has therefore emerged from both Republicans and Democrats, leading hundreds of cities, counties, and local agencies to begin canceling their contracts. This shows that when transparency disappears, the cost does not fall on the company alone; it becomes a problem of public trust.