Flock License Plate Readers: Difference between revisions

Line 18:

====Privacy====

While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics|title=Privacy & Ethics|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p|archive-date=2025-08-23|url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras ~~likely violates the Fourth Amendment~~, finding the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/|title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed|work=Institute for Justice|date=2024-02-01|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics|title=Privacy & Ethics|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p|archive-date=2025-08-23|url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras could proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/|title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed|work=Institute for Justice|date=2024-02-01|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Data collected includes location history that can reveal sensitive information about medical visits, religious attendance, political activities, and personal associations. While Flock states data is deleted after 30 days, contracts grant them ''"perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license"'' to use anonymized data indefinitely.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions|title=Terms and Conditions|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> The system shares data across a network of over 4,800 law enforcement agencies nationally.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/|title=Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional|work=404 Media|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Line 60:

===Constitutional challenges (2024-ongoing)===

In February 2024, Federal Judge Mark Davis ~~ruled that~~ Norfolk~~, Virginia~~'s use of 172 Flock cameras ~~likely violates the Fourth Amendment~~, comparing the case to Carpenter v. United States regarding warrantless location tracking. ~~The judge found~~ it "''difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://insideinvestigator.org/flock-camera-lawsuit-can-move-forward/|title=Flock camera lawsuit can move forward|work=Connecticut Inside Investigator|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

In February 2024, Federal Judge Mark Davis denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a Fourth Amendment challenge to the city's use of 172 Flock cameras, comparing the case to Carpenter v. United States regarding warrantless location tracking. Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot stated that the cameras were placed so it would be "''difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://insideinvestigator.org/flock-camera-lawsuit-can-move-forward/|title=Flock camera lawsuit can move forward|work=Connecticut Inside Investigator|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===False positive incidents (2025)===

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ====Privacy====
-While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics|title=Privacy & Ethics|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p|archive-date=2025-08-23|url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras likely violates the Fourth Amendment, finding the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/|title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed|work=Institute for Justice|date=2024-02-01|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>
+While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics|title=Privacy & Ethics|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p|archive-date=2025-08-23|url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras could proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/|title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed|work=Institute for Justice|date=2024-02-01|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>
 Data collected includes location history that can reveal sensitive information about medical visits, religious attendance, political activities, and personal associations. While Flock states data is deleted after 30 days, contracts grant them ''"perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license"'' to use anonymized data indefinitely.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions|title=Terms and Conditions|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> The system shares data across a network of over 4,800 law enforcement agencies nationally.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/|title=Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional|work=404 Media|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 ===Constitutional challenges (2024-ongoing)===
-In February 2024, Federal Judge Mark Davis ruled that Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras likely violates the Fourth Amendment, comparing the case to Carpenter v. United States regarding warrantless location tracking. The judge found it "''difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://insideinvestigator.org/flock-camera-lawsuit-can-move-forward/|title=Flock camera lawsuit can move forward|work=Connecticut Inside Investigator|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>
+In February 2024, Federal Judge Mark Davis denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a Fourth Amendment challenge to the city's use of 172 Flock cameras, comparing the case to Carpenter v. United States regarding warrantless location tracking. Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot stated that the cameras were placed so it would be "''difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://insideinvestigator.org/flock-camera-lawsuit-can-move-forward/|title=Flock camera lawsuit can move forward|work=Connecticut Inside Investigator|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>
 ===False positive incidents (2025)===