Protecting Your Business with a Camera Might Just Make You a Target
Executive Summary
Flock Safety, an AI surveillance company rapidly expanding across the U.S., markets its license plate reader (LPR) cameras and real-time tracking software to businesses and law enforcement. But for many, these systems represent a dangerous expansion of the surveillance state—fueling fears around privacy violations, over-policing, and state overreach. A growing number of individuals and collectives are responding with organized resistance, from lobbying local governments to physically dismantling Flock systems in acts of defiance. As AI-powered surveillance becomes more normalized, businesses may find themselves caught between promises of “security” and becoming nodes in a sprawling, increasingly contested network of digital control.
Analysis
Founded in 2017, Flock Safety now boasts installations in over 4,000 U.S. cities, leasing cameras to police departments, HOAs, and private businesses. Its devices capture vehicle data—license plates, colors, modifications, and movement patterns—and upload this information to its cloud, where it is stored and cross-referenced. The cameras use motion detection to trigger bursts of photos, while newer AI features can even identify plate swapping and distinctive visual features like “SUV with ladder.” Once downloaded by clients, data can be stored indefinitely.
Flock’s integration potential expands its scope: third-party hardware and community registries funnel more surveillance into its AI-powered ecosystem. Drone capability has been added via its $300M acquisition of Aerodome, raising concerns about aerial policing.
Critics worry that this infrastructure poses major risks to civil liberties. AI surveillance could be weaponized in anti-immigrant efforts or abortion prosecutions, and its deployment often disproportionately targets Black and marginalized communities. Meanwhile, the physical footprint of these cameras has drawn backlash. Across cities like Atlanta, Savannah, and Traverse City, resistance groups have dismantled or destroyed dozens of Flock cameras, experimenting with drills, hammers, spray paint, and brute force.
A parallel legal front also challenges Flock’s expansion. Complaints about illegal installation on state highways, Fourth Amendment lawsuits, and public pressure campaigns have forced municipalities to reconsider or remove Flock systems. And with each physical removal or delayed replacement, activists chip away at the illusion of omnipresent surveillance.
Those opposed to Flock offer a range of tactics—from license plate obfuscation and temporary vehicle alterations to legal challenges and community organizing. Zines like Birds of a Feather, Destroy a Flock Together document these strategies, arguing that Flock cameras don’t just monitor neighborhoods—they become a threat to the communities they claim to protect.
For businesses considering Flock systems, the takeaway is clear: in an age of mounting public scrutiny and pushback, installing a surveillance camera might not make you safer—it might just make you a target.
