Trash bags over tech: cities disable Flock surveillance cameras with low-tech fix

At a glance:

• Cities including Dayton, Ohio and Evanston, Illinois are covering Flock Safety cameras with trash bags to disable them during contract disputes.
• Concerns include 7,100 immigration-related searches and data sharing with federal agencies like ICE.
• Flock's AI-powered surveillance system tracks license plates, identifies people, and deploys drones over neighborhoods.

The trash bag tactic: How cities are disabling Flock cameras

Facing mounting public pressure over surveillance concerns, several US cities have adopted an unconventional method to disable Flock Safety cameras: covering them with black trash bags. This low-tech approach has emerged as local governments seek to maintain control over their surveillance systems while negotiating the termination of problematic contracts.

The tactic gained attention in Dayton, Ohio, where officials suspended their Flock program after discovering significant data-sharing violations. The city's 72 Flock cameras were covered with garbage bags to prevent external agencies from accessing footage during ongoing contract disputes. Similarly, Evanston, Illinois ordered Flock to remove its 19 cameras by 2025, but when some remained and were reportedly reinstalled without authorization, the city council moved to fully shut down the system.

This approach reflects the challenges cities face in controlling how their police departments use surveillance technology. Unlike traditional camera systems that can be easily disconnected, Flock's networked infrastructure requires careful coordination to ensure complete disablement. The trash bag solution, while crude, provides a temporary physical barrier that prevents both internal and external access to camera feeds.

Data sharing concerns and privacy violations

The primary driver behind these actions is concern over how Flock data is shared with federal agencies. Reports indicate that Flock cameras have been used for immigration enforcement, with Dayton's cameras logging 7,100 searches related to immigration purposes. Police departments aren't always required to record the reason for their Flock searches, creating transparency gaps.

Critics including Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden argue that Flock's ability to identify people based on physical features or clothing makes abuse almost inevitable. The technology can track individuals' movements and routines, raising concerns about surveillance of personal disputes and sensitive activities. Some reports have also flagged cameras being installed in sensitive areas such as swimming pools and children's gymnastics facilities.

The data sharing extends beyond immigration. Flock systems have reportedly shared information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies, creating a pipeline from local law enforcement to national immigration enforcement operations.

Legal battles and public pushback

Public resistance has grown alongside the expansion of Flock's presence in American communities. Residents in Boulder, Colorado have filed lawsuits challenging the use of Flock cameras in their area. The technology's integration into existing camera systems means some installations may go unnoticed by the public.

Cities face additional complications when trying to terminate contracts. Flock surveillance cameras are often identifiable by solar panels mounted on top, but the company's software can integrate with existing compatible camera systems, meaning new hardware may not appear even when the technology is in use.

Some communities have responded with outright bans. A city council member in Bandera, Texas expressed such frustration with Flock that he floated a ban on cell phones and the internet—though this appears to have been rhetorical rather than literal policy.

Flock's role in private and public surveillance

Flock cameras serve dual roles in both public and private sectors. Cities contract for AI-powered surveillance systems that read license plates, identify vehicle details, track people, and deploy camera drones over neighborhoods. However, oversight and control can vary significantly between jurisdictions.

Private neighborhood groups also deploy Flock systems, adding another layer of complexity to public oversight. Some cities announce general surveillance programs without specifically naming Flock, even when contracts involve Flock Safety cameras or drones.

The company's expansion has outpaced regulatory frameworks in many areas. While some jurisdictions have specific laws governing surveillance cameras, others lack clear guidelines for data retention, access controls, and usage restrictions.

What's next: Regulation and alternatives

The trash bag tactic represents just one response to growing concerns about automated surveillance. Residents are encouraged to check local news, contact city officials, and attend public meetings to question surveillance programs.

Many jurisdictions offer public records laws that can provide information about surveillance usage, though cities like Dayton and Evanston have sometimes claimed exemptions for audit records.

Advocacy groups like the Plate Privacy Project are working to raise awareness and push for legislative restrictions on surveillance camera systems. Understanding state and local laws regarding cameras remains important, as rules vary widely by jurisdiction.

The trend suggests increasing scrutiny of AI-powered surveillance technologies. As more communities grapple with balancing public safety and privacy rights, expect continued innovation in both technical countermeasures and regulatory approaches.