I posted a while ago about the issue of the Flock Cameras here in BCS and our DeFlock BCS group has made significant progress in bringing about the concerns in front of City Council.

Updates:
- We have found that the contract for CS alone will be over $300k and was recently approved to be paid for through the Catalytic Converter grant which caused some controversy because the flock contract was not mentioned anywhere as the target contract for the grant. Even though this is being paid for by a grant, it is still tax payer money.

- Through a FOIA request, we asked for the locations and the audit logs of how CSPD has used the cameras and while we received the locations, the City Attorney's Office wrote a letter to AG Ken Paxton in an attempt to block the releasing of the audit logs. This is one of the most critical parts of this battle because since February we have had people speaking in front of the City Council highlighting one of the biggest concerns is lack of oversight. Yet they still attempt to block the release of the logs that will provide the bare minimum of oversight for a tool like this.

- We have made enough noise that City Council has decided to push a discussion over the continuation of the contract in its entirety to a meeting in July. If you would like to get involved with us, we would love to have you join us and gather together as a community and make the changes we want to see.

You can find more info and updates on Flock on deflock BCS facebook page as well.

Seeing how this is the only topic you ever post about across the site, how about explaining why you're obsessed with getting rid of them?

Every post/thread you've made just wants to get rid of them, complaining about cost, or simply what the cameras do.

And please, don't give something vague like "privacy" because that is a cheap cop out answer.

Why would Flock be opposed if it regularly catches car thieves, wanted felons, stolen vehicles, etc?

Austin has been de-Flocked. The illegals who went on a multi day shooting spree there were only caught because they traveled through a suburb with Flock cameras.

I'm not saying I don't agree with the privacy concerns, but they are an unprecedented law enforcement tool.

Rapier108 said:

---

Seeing how this is the only topic you ever post about across the site, how about explaining why you're obsessed with getting rid of them?

Every post/thread you've made just wants to get rid of them, complaining about cost, or simply what the cameras do.

And please, don't give something vague like "privacy" because that is a cheap cop out answer.

---

Why are you attempting to make the argument about the poster instead of the issue? Who cares what his motivation is if he's right. If he's wrong, then the issue should be easy for you to defend/attack (as the case may be). It would be one thing if hypocrisy or credibility were at issue, but it doesn't seem to be.

This is the definition of ad hominem.

Don't live in CS but hate the big brother aspect. There are cases of law enforcement tracking their ex-wives for no good reason. OPs request for oversight seems pretty reasonable. His request for transparency on the funding is a no brainer.

[You will be respectful on this forum and not insult other posters or you will get banned. Rookies do not get a lot of room when they start out posting like that to people that have been on here for a long time and permanent bans come in a hurry. That is your warning. -Staff]

80sGeorge said:

---

Don't live in CS but hate the big brother aspect. There are cases of law enforcement tracking their ex-wives for no good reason. OPs request for oversight seems pretty reasonable. His request for transparency on the funding is a no brainer.

---

There was a deputy in Montgomery county arrested last week for stalking his ex...

meh if you are not committing crimes no one cares about your info.

So instead of wanting to have a discussion, you start with an insult. At least you finally told everyone why you are trying to remove a useful tool for the police.

Have a nice day; not going to engage with you.

I got a ticket 20 years ago by a red light camera at Walton and Texas. It was raining, the light turned red quicker than I anticipated, I hit my brakes and slid past the line at the light. Backed up, embarrassed, and went on my way when the light turned green.

A few weeks later I got a letter in the mail with the ticket for running a red light. Grudgingly paid it, since I technically ran the light. A week later the red light cameras were ruled illegal and taken down.

I'm still butthurt about that.

I don't oppose Flock cameras in general principle but there have been many documented cases of police overreach using data from them.

In one case a package was stolen off a porch by a woman in an SUV and a police detective searches Flock camera data and finds a similar suv registered to a woman that drove through town past the house 21 times in the month prior. Cop decides it is definitely her based on that info then goes to her house and arrests her despite her pleas that her drive to work takes her that route. Surprise it wasn't her.


In another case a guy driving near San Antonio gets pulled over on a pretextual BS stop and the cop just wants to search his vehicle. He uses every argument he can to trick the guy into letting him search his vehicle but the guy won't play ball. Cop extends the stop for an extended period while he brings in a K-9 unit and of course the dog "hits" on the car. They search and find nothing and the guy smells BS and sues. Turns out there was a drug task force made up of different agencies that was getting tipoffs of plates of people making one day trips to the RGV and back. There was a WhatsApp text chain where they would get vehicle descriptions and plate numbers and they would locate the cars and run a pretextual stop to get inside them with no PC.

Darthag11 said:

---

meh if you are not committing crimes no one cares about your info.

---

That's a really poor answer. Never trust government. All of human history proves this basic fact. The greatest nation in human history was founded on the basic idea that government cannot be trusted and freedom means government can't watch you because it wants to.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Darthag11 said:

---

meh if you are not committing crimes no one cares about your info.

---

That's a really poor answer. Never trust government. All of human history proves this basic fact. The greatest nation in human history was founded on the basic idea that government cannot be trusted and freedom means government can't watch you because it wants to.

---

This basically summarizes my whole argument against them. Thanks.

Mas89 said:

---

Why would Flock be opposed if it regularly catches car thieves, wanted felons, stolen vehicles, etc?

---

In the contemporary era, where many homes are outfitted with personal security systems and ring cameras, I am more concerned about the safety of my personal data on these devices rather than on public "flock" cameras.

Mas89 said:

---

Why would Flock be opposed if it regularly catches car thieves, wanted felons, stolen vehicles, etc?

---

Because I don't care to live in a surveillance state just so they can catch bad guys easier.

The cameras read license plates displayed on a public roadway. That's not invading anyone's privacy. CSPD and other agencies can develop sound policies with some checks to prevent their misuse. Otherwise, they have proven to be invaluable in catching the bad guys.

Personally, I don't know why people have reservations about local LE sharing the data with the feds, either. If it helps them catch lawbreakers, that's a good thing. You may have an issue with the ethics of Flock cameras, but their legality is not an issue. Again, license plates are publicly displayed on public roadways.

Some folks are just against LE having any common sense tools that prevent or solve crimes. Unless you are involved in committing a crime, you have nothing to worry about.

Flock cameras capture and process the following information

• Vehicle Images: Digital photographs of the vehicle, including close-ups of the license plate.
• License Plate Data: The exact alphanumeric characters, state of issuance, and plate type (e.g., standard, temporary, missing, or covered).
• Vehicle Characteristics: Attributes such as vehicle make, model, and color.
• Distinguishing Details: Over 20 unique "Vehicle Fingerprint" features, including bumper stickers, roof racks, after-market wheels, and visible damage like a broken taillight. (more below)
• Location and Time: The exact date, time, and specific camera location where the vehicle passed

If the person driving gets captured as well, it gets captured, even if they aren't "looking" for that.

Flock Safety's Vehicle Fingerprint technology is an AI-driven video analytics system. It identifies, catalogs, and searches vehicles based on distinct visual attributes.

The system classifies and indexes the following attributes to help law enforcement find specific vehicles:

• Vehicle Make: (e.g., Ford, Toyota, Honda)
• Body Type: (e.g., Sedan, SUV, Pickup truck)
• Vehicle Color:
• License Plate: Standard, temporary (paper), or absent plates, along with the registering state
• Unique Features & Accessories: Back or top racks, external toolboxes, and spare tires
• Distinguishing Visual Characteristics: Bumper stickers, decals, and visible body damage or dents

While I am for police being able to do their jobs, I am somewhat torn on this one. While helpful, there have been several instances of misuse of this tech by police around the country -

There are numerous documented cases of police officers misusing the searchable camera network to track individuals for personal reasons rather than criminal investigations.

• Romantic Stalking: Multiple police officers and police chiefs across the country (including jurisdictions in Kansas, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) have been investigated or charged with misconduct for using Flock cameras to stalk ex-girlfriends or spouses.
• Citizen Harassment: Police leadership has occasionally misused ALPR systems to monitor citizens with whom they had personal disputes, prompting audits and internal affairs investigations

https://www.joplinmo.org/m/newsflash/home/detail/3949
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it

Again, I'm torn on this subject. I think it could be valuable, but the potential for misuse is really high, and I see places removing them at a cost *after* it is misused, costing the municipalities more.

Here is another one. Flock camera made an error reading one digit on the plate and the cop that stopped the vehicle didn't perform any verification leading to a dad and his 16 yr old daughter with epilepsy getting pulled out of their car at gunpoint.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Darthag11 said:

---

meh if you are not committing crimes no one cares about your info.

---

That's a really poor answer. Never trust government. All of human history proves this basic fact. The greatest nation in human history was founded on the basic idea that government cannot be trusted and freedom means government can't watch you because it wants to.

---

This.

It is not the business of the government to know what people are doing. Anywhere, at any time.

Their cyber security is pretty weak. Plenty of videos out there showing how to hack in to them

They don't abide by any TXDOT standards as far installation of road signage go.

They don't care about safety and crime. They care about all of the data they are gathering on you. Police agencies are so giddy to get this new "tool" but haven't really thought through the other aspects of this 24/7 surveillance.

Cities are getting creative in camouflaging these things

Their poles are TXDOT approved. I can not find a site right now that shows they have TXDOT approval, but they do. TXDOT does not allow them to place them in their Right of way without breakaway designs. They have been tested and approved. That argument is not a valid one. Here is where Florida DOT goes into their different crash worthiness designs and what is approved:

https://www.fdot.gov/traffic/trafficservices/lpr/approved-lpr-supports

Do you really think that TXDOT would allow that to happen? No, they wouldn't. TXDOT takes Safety very seriously and would be greatly exposed to liability if they let a third party come in with a dangerous product in their Right-of-way


Side note: I am torn as well about these. I have a feeling they will go away one day like red light cameras when someone deems them unconstitutional.

How long before insurance companies get access to these things.

100% against.

https://deflock.org/

See where all the cameras are at link above. Keeping you safe.