Flock License Plate Readers: Difference between revisions

Line 102:

In Illinois, a Flock representative allegedly threatened a Department of Transportation official with police pressure when questioned about permit applications.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Uprise RI Staff |date=2024-10-23 |title=As Flock Surveillance Cameras Proliferate in Rhode Island, Lawsuit Challenges Their Legality |url=https://upriseri.com/as-flock-surveillance-cameras-proliferate-in-rhode-island-lawsuit-challenges-their-legality/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=UPRISE RI}}</ref>

===== '''In Evanston:''' =====

Flock was ordered to remove 18 stationary cameras. The city put the contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on August 26. Flock Initially appeared to comply, removing 15 of the cameras by September 8. Later, Flock was caught reinstalling all of them by the following Tuesday without authorization from the city.

The city of Evanston responded with a cease-and-desist order for Flock to remove the new and unauthorized camera equipment.

Because Flock reinstalled the cameras without permission, Evanston was forced to cover the cameras with tape and bags to block them from potentially logging vehicle data.

This situation is particularly absurd, as the city was left with little choice but to physically shield the cameras due to Flock’s unauthorized action, and outright noncompliance with the wishes of the city.

Flock appears apprehensive to comply and remove the hardware, with a representative of flock stating:

“We continue to be optimistic that we will have the opportunity to have a constructive dialogue to address the City’s concerns and resume our successful partnership making Evanston safer”

While it is clear that flock wishes to continue their contract, this does not address the wishes of the city. In this regard, A Flock spokesperson stated: “the cameras are not active and will be uninstalled”

This raises concerns, as it is unclear why flock chose to incur costs to install unauthorized inactive cameras after the initial request for removal. Additionally, it is not possible, or remains extremely difficult and costly for the city to independently verify that the ‘inactive’ cameras are truly disabled.

It remains unclear if there is concrete financial incentive for flock to partake in these possibly illegal or otherwise unethical actions.

More physical cameras are ostensibly capable of creating more data, which is collected in aggregate by flock, and selectively shared with other clients. Additional data could create a clear value proposition for certain flock services, and thus effects the desirability of the services provided by flock, and potentially, the price which flock can expect to charge for their services.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harrison |first=Alex |date=September 25th, 2025 |title=City covers Flock cameras while waiting for removal |url=https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flock-cameras-while-waiting-for-removal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/PD1qe |archive-date=2025-10-10 |access-date=2025-10-10 |website=Evanston Roundtable}}</ref>

===City rejections and terminations===

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 In Illinois, a Flock representative allegedly threatened a Department of Transportation official with police pressure when questioned about permit applications.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Uprise RI Staff |date=2024-10-23 |title=As Flock Surveillance Cameras Proliferate in Rhode Island, Lawsuit Challenges Their Legality |url=https://upriseri.com/as-flock-surveillance-cameras-proliferate-in-rhode-island-lawsuit-challenges-their-legality/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=UPRISE RI}}</ref>
+===== '''In Evanston:''' =====
+Flock was ordered to remove 18 stationary cameras. The city put the contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on August 26. Flock Initially appeared to comply, removing 15 of the cameras by September 8. Later, <u>Flock was caught reinstalling all of them by the following Tuesday without authorization from the city.</u>
+The city of Evanston responded with a cease-and-desist order for Flock to remove the new and unauthorized camera equipment.
+Because Flock reinstalled the cameras without permission, <u>Evanston was forced to cover the cameras with tape and bags to block them from potentially logging vehicle data.</u>
+This situation is particularly absurd, as the city was left with little choice but to physically shield the cameras due to Flock’s unauthorized action, and outright noncompliance with the wishes of the city.
+Flock appears apprehensive to comply and remove the hardware, with a representative of flock stating:
+“We continue to be optimistic that we will have the opportunity to have a constructive dialogue to address the City’s concerns and resume our successful partnership making Evanston safer”
+While it is clear that flock wishes to continue their contract, this does not address the wishes of the city. In this regard, A Flock spokesperson stated: “the cameras are not active and will be uninstalled”
+This raises concerns, as <u>it is unclear why flock chose to incur costs to install</u> <u>unauthorized inactive cameras after the initial request for removal.</u> Additionally, it is not possible, or remains extremely difficult and costly for the city to independently verify that the ‘inactive’ cameras are truly disabled.
+It remains unclear if there is concrete financial incentive for flock to partake in these possibly illegal or otherwise unethical actions.
+More physical cameras are ostensibly capable of creating more data, which is collected in aggregate by flock, and selectively shared with other clients. Additional data could create a clear value proposition for certain flock services, and thus effects the desirability of the services provided by flock, and potentially, the price which flock can expect to charge for their services.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harrison |first=Alex |date=September 25th, 2025 |title=City covers Flock cameras while waiting for removal |url=https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flock-cameras-while-waiting-for-removal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/PD1qe |archive-date=2025-10-10 |access-date=2025-10-10 |website=Evanston Roundtable}}</ref>
 ===City rejections and terminations===