Synthesis Essay: Flocking Towards Privacy Concerns - Personal Essay
In today’s age, we are all used to seeing cameras in stores, Ring doorbells on houses, and traffic cameras attached to stoplights. Did anyone expect networks of cameras that have advanced tracking capabilities to be placed all over the nation? One company at the center of this debate is “Flock Safety” also known as Flock. Flock has developed automated license plate reader cameras that are primarily used by police departments across the United States. Some civilians view these cameras as valuable tools that help solve crimes, while other civilians see them as a growing threat to privacy and security. Flock argues that its technology operates within legal and safe guidelines in an article they posted to their website “Setting the Record Straight: Statement on Flock Network Sharing, Use Cases, and Federal Cooperation”. This stance contradicts the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) article, “Flock Safety’s Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe”. In the EFF’s article they stated that these systems threaten the privacy and security of citizens. Flock and the EFF stances on this topic differ because both believe they are acting in the best interest of the public. Flock believes its cooperation with law enforcement improves public safety, while the EFF believes this much surveillance undermines the rights and safety of individual citizens.
In Flock’s article, “Setting the Record Straight: Statement on Flock Network Sharing, Use Cases, and Federal Cooperation” they consistently defend themselves by emphasizing they are just providing tools to support local law enforcement. The company points out that it does not control or misuse the data collected through its cameras. Each local police department retains full authority over the data collected. Flock has no control over the rules that govern these tools, as its systems cover the entire United States. The company stresses that “As a private technology company of around 1500 people, Flock cannot determine the criminal codes or what is enforced. We rely on democratic processes to determine what is and is not acceptable in cities and states.” (Flock Safety). Flock positions itself as a neutral party that develops tools for public security and states that it’s up to the public to determine its use cases.
In direct opposition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) article, “Flock Safety’s Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe,” challenges Flock and claims that the company’s new features fail to address the core issues which involve mass data collection practices without consent. The EFF warns that these camera systems track not only suspected criminals but also ordinary people, recording their movements, routines, and associations. This is what creates vulnerabilities that could be misused by those with bad intentions. The article points out “The intimate details of people’s daily routines, their associations, and their political activities may become available to anyone with malicious intent” (The EFF). The EFF pushes for public awareness to limit the spread of surveillance technology it believes threatens basic rights of Americans.
While both articles address the same technology, their perspectives differ significantly. Flock presents its technology as a neutral tool serving only legitimate law enforcement needs within the law. The company emphasizes that its technology is governed by democratic processes and local police departments. The EFF, however, views these tools as extremely dangerous, arguing that even lawful use can lead to abuse, discrimination, and overreach. Both parties acknowledge the importance of protecting citizens, but they define protection differently. Flock focuses on providing tools for law enforcement while the EFF focuses on protecting individuals from excessive surveillance. Ultimately, the debate centers on whether trust in democratic oversight is sufficient to safeguard privacy when so much personal data is being tracked without consent.
Considering both perspectives, a balanced stance recognizes the usefulness of Flock’s surveillance tools in solving crimes while also insisting on stronger transparency and limitations. Flock’s claim that current democratic processes ensure accountability is valid but incomplete. Laws often lag behind technological advancements, and public awareness can be limited. The EFF warns that these genuine dangers must be taken seriously. The most responsible path forward is to implement regulations that allow local and federal governments to establish rules on data retention, technology permits, individual privacy rights, and much more. While surveillance is likely to expand in the future, mandatory limitations on the collection and use of data from these devices are essential for protecting rights of citizens and maintaining public trust.
Works Cited
Flock Safety. “Statement on Flock Network Sharing, Use Cases, and Federal Cooperation.” Flock Safety, 19 June 2025, https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/statement-network-sharing-use-cases-federal-cooperation.
Hamid, Sarah, and Rindala Alajaji. “Flock Safety’s Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 27 June 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe.
