Get the Flock Outta Here — Why I Created the "De-Flock the Block" Shirt: Privacy, Flock Cameras, and the Fourth Amendment
- Toussaint Lorenz
- Jul 8
- 6 min read
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." — The Fourth Amendment
Interested in the design that inspired this article? You can check out the De-Flock the Block collection below. Then keep reading to learn why I made it.
*Click shirt to shop*
What are Flock Cameras?
Before we continue: If you're already familiar with Flock cameras and just want to support the message behind this article, you can grab a De-Flock the Block shirt here.
Flock cameras are license plate reader surveillance cameras made by Flock Safety, a law enforcement tech company. They collect data in a multitude of ways, including cameras, drones, license plate readers, and other devices. Not to sound too over the top, but in the spirit of having recently read George Orwell's 1984, if Big Brother warned us about a society built on constant surveillance, systems like Flock are the kind of technology that naturally make people ask where that line should be. Their operating system offers users the ability to look up a plate number and see where the vehicle was seen in the last 30 days.
The system also offers what they call a "Vehicle Fingerprint," which grabs the make, model, color, state the plate is registered in, whether the plate is covered or missing, and unique features of the vehicle such as bumps, scratches, roof racks, etc., all of which help law enforcement identify it during an investigation.
What is the goal with the Flock Cameras?
According to Flock Safety, the goal of Flock Cameras is to assist law enforcement with varying crimes such as Amber Alerts, stolen vehicles, violent crime investigations, and just being all-around more efficient.
That doesn't sound so bad, what's the problem?
If you ask some people, there really isn't one. Officers can get notified when a stolen car passes a camera, the reconstruction of where a suspect's vehicle traveled before or after crimes can be done for cases like homicides, kidnappings, robberies, hit and runs, etc. They can save investigators time and help find missing people. Among the "pros," people in favor of them state that the systems focus on license plates and vehicle characteristics, not identifying occupants of the vehicles. And to cap it all off, the data isn't stored forever. Plus, "If you're not committing any crimes, you shouldn't be worried about it."
That might be all well and good if it was ONLY tracking criminals. But that's not how a system like this works. Before investigators can identify the handful of vehicles they're actually looking for, the system first has to record millions of vehicles belonging to people who aren't suspects at all. And while it may not track people's faces (or so they say), it can track their travel patterns. Where they live, work, worship, go to varying appointments, who they regularly visit, political events they've attended, etc. That's too much of my business that I don't feel should be their business.
There's also the question of where the line gets drawn. "Mission creep," as it's dubbed, is where something starts out as, "We'll only use it to recover stolen cars," and expands to, "It helps us locate suspects," leading us to the Minority Report plot of, "We can now proactively determine who's suspicious based on how they drove that Tuesday."
Okay... maybe that's a little drastic, but you get the idea.
We continue to see this Wild West AI rollout with little (if any) checks and balances until something terrible happens, and even then we're still letting it stay in the express lane, all so we can compete with other countries who've notoriously cared even less about their people's rights (or so we're told). AI is the new race to the moon—or the new nuke-building race—but it feels like there's a lot more at stake.
Data sharing, for instance? We've all dealt with that age-old scenario where you're having a conversation about how Toussaint Lorenz' new album IBOH II is going to be the greatest album of all time, and then see relentless ads pop up on Meta or insert app here in regards to it. But with these Flock Cameras, we've got other questions. Who has access? Under what circumstances? For how long? Can that access expand over time?
And with that, aren't we being surveilled enough as a society? From our phones (as expressed above) to cameras everywhere else we go. What's next? Digital IDs? (Don't get me started on those mo********ers.)
Let's be real too. A big issue I have is that no system is stronger than the people entrusted to use it. Some people argue that abuse is rare. The problem is that powerful tools don't have to be abused often for people to question whether sufficient safeguards exist.
A police chief in Sedgwick, Kansas, admitted to using Flock to search his ex-girlfriend's vehicle and her new boyfriend's vehicle 228 times over more than four months. According to investigators, he'd also followed them in his patrol car before resigning. But isn't that just one incident?
Wouldn't that be nice...
In Orange City, Florida, an officer allegedly searched his ex-girlfriend's license plate at least 69 times (weird number to stop on, I know), along with repeated searches of her parents' vehicles.
In the Milwaukee area of Wisconsin, an officer was charged after allegedly using Flock more than 120 times to look up someone he was dating while on duty. Could take a guess why he was single.
Sidebar: I make a lot of jokes about how women are crazy, but sincerely, ladies... I'm sorry.
The Institute for Justice reported that it identified at least 14 documented cases of officers using these systems to monitor romantic interests. More recent reporting identified 21 known cases, but of course it's argued the number is likely higher because these incidents aren't often brought to the forefront until after a victim files a public records request or an internal investigation begins. To be clear, I'm not suggesting every officer or every agency abuses these systems. Most probably don't. My concern is that the existence of documented abuse shows why conversations about oversight and constitutional limits matter before—not after—power is misused.
With great power comes great responsibility... and looking at how things are going all around the world, humans really aren't responsible enough for it yet, in my opinion. Maybe I'm just projecting, though, because no lie, I'd be spying on the pizza guy trying to figure out what's taking him so long...
I'm watching you, Liam...
The last point in all of this, which is arguably the most important, is that I believe systems like this raise serious questions about whether they're consistent with the spirit of the Fourth Amendment stated clearly above as the opener to this incredibly long piece of writing (thanks for hanging in there). If you're the government, and as willing to overreach as you have been (and as we continue to see regardless of administration), and you continue to collect all of this location data, how can we, the people, know and trust these tools won't eventually be used in unreasonable ways? Especially when this technology can reconstruct a person's movements over a period of time? Sure, they present it as safety, but we all know that's just how they get their foot in the door. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile and somehow make you pay for it too...
Contrary to what the closest people to me may think, I don't consider myself to be a perfect person. And I'm not an AI hater. Hell, I used ChatGPT to help me write this. And while I do have some serious points of contention with my country and government (America), I do believe that our Founding Fathers believed in the idea of freedom—namely freedom from tyranny and an oppressive state—at least for themselves (cause ya know... slaves...). I also believe they did their best to write those protections into our Constitution. And I just don't see how Flock Cameras don't inevitably lead to a path going against those constitutional beliefs as we continue to move forward (and, in some ways, very much backward) as a society.
That's why I called this design De-Flock the Block. It's not anti-police. It's not anti-technology. It's a reminder that liberty is much easier to lose than it is to get back. Whether you agree with every word I've written or not, I hope the shirt—and the conversation around it—encourages people to think a little harder about where we draw the line between public safety and personal freedom.
I leave you with this parting quote from Benjamin Franklin, which is also written on the back of the De-Flock the Block shirts so you can be reminded—and remind others:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
— Benjamin Franklin
If you made it this far, thank you for reading. Whether you agree with me or think I'm completely off base, I appreciate you hearing me out. If you'd like to wear the conversation, you can grab your De-Flock the Block shirt here.
Love finding new artists, releases, and events before they’re big? Explore them all with Toussaint Lorenz here
Comments