Even When Cities Want Flock Gone, Getting Rid of It Isn’t Always Easy

A follow-up to my earlier note on Flock raises an uncomfortable question: what happens when a city decides it no longer wants the surveillance network?

According to documents obtained by 404 Media through public records requests, the City of Verona, Wisconsin repeatedly asked Flock to remove its automated license plate reader cameras after its contract ended. Instead of promptly removing the equipment, city officials were told not to take the cameras down themselves, and a Flock employee indicated they were unsure whether the cameras could even be remotely disabled. While waiting for removal, the city covered the cameras with black plastic bags so they would stop recording.

That should concern anyone evaluating these systems.

If a municipality votes to end a surveillance program, the expectation should be simple: the equipment stops collecting data and is removed without delay. The idea that a city feels compelled to put trash bags over privately owned surveillance cameras because it isn't confident they've been disabled says something about the imbalance between vendors and the communities they serve.

This isn't happening in isolation. Concerns over Flock's data collection, sharing practices, and oversight have led dozens of cities to end or reconsider their contracts, while members of Congress have introduced legislation aimed at restricting the use of automated license plate reader data by federal agencies. The debate is clearly shifting from should we install these? to how do we unwind them once they're here?

Surveillance infrastructure should never become something a community struggles to remove after deciding it no longer reflects its values.