Why People Keep Attacking & Vandalizing These Specific Traffic Cameras

Have you spotted a Flock camera on your daily commute yet? If not, it’s possible somebody knocked the things down. Over 80,000 of these surveillance traffic cameras have been installed across the US so far, making them one of the most widespread forms of surveillance in the country. Unsurprisingly, not everyone’s thrilled by that unsettling fact. It’s led to a number of Flock cams getting vandalized, dismantled, or outright destroyed.

Incidents of vandalism against the cameras have been reported across multiple states so far, including Connecticut, Illinois, Virginia, California, and Oregon. Damage has ranged from smashed equipment to devices being cut down from poles or even reportedly being shot. The more cameras get installed, the more backlash we might see — especially considering Flock’s role in immigration enforcement.

Ostensibly, Flock Safety scores contracts to install these cameras to serve as automated license plate readers for local law enforcement. The cameras photograph license plates on public roads and let law enforcement agencies search the images to pin down vehicles with possible ties to criminal investigations. Similar to the debate over red light cameras, critics say this is just plain unconstitutional. And like the argument against doorbell cameras, there’s also the fact that Flock can (and has!) used its large network to track people’s driving habits, including following where and when they travel. Just look at one Virginia driver who was tracked over 500 times.

Given Flock’s contracts with law enforcement agencies, there are legitimate privacy concerns and fears about how that information’s being shared between agencies. Still, Flock insists its system is far from mass surveillance. The company says its cameras only capture point-in-time images of license plates from public roadways and can’t actually track individuals or vehicles, especially not continuously over time. The company also claims most images collected are never accessed by investigators and are eventually deleted after a set retention period. Flock defends itself even further by saying they have safeguards in place (like audit logs, geofencing, and role-based access controls) to limit misuse of the system, too.

But Flock’s actions tell a different story, especially their roundabout support for anti-immigration efforts being carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency has been dependent on Flock to help locate people during raids and deportation efforts by way of local law enforcement agencies with access to the data. It’s something Flock knows about and has admitted as much. That affiliation (however far removed) has added fuel to the fire at city meetings, during public protests, and, in some cases, in direct action by residents that believe there’s enough evidence to say Flock breaks the law and threatens civil liberties.