Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/09/2026 6:16:39 AM PDT by Red Badger
Across the country, opposition to the license plate cameras created by Flock Safety is mounting.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., is vowing to pursue legislation in Congress to rein in the proliferation of Flock cameras by law enforcement after he experienced his own traffic stop aided by the controversial license plate readers.
“I just don't like where we're going with Flock cameras. I think that it's invasive, as you said. It's too big government,” Stutzman told the Just the News, No Noise television show on Friday night. “You know the law enforcement folks would argue that they can use these as a tool. You know they (cameras) can be where you can't have a human.”
Across the country, opposition to the license plate cameras created by Flock Safety is mounting, causing some communities to end their contracts over privacy concerns.
Stutzman recently experienced the long arm reach of the Flock cameras during a car ride in his home district in Indiana.
“I pulled into my driveway, and all of a sudden, a police officer pulls in behind me,” he recalled. “I said, you know, ‘Can I help you? Did I do something wrong?’ And he said, ‘Well, your car's registration has expired.'
“So I looked, and it was in my wife's name. I somehow missed it. Of course, we got it taken care of. But you know, he recognized my car because the Flock cameras relayed the information that you know we had driven into town, and it was under the jurisdiction of these Flock cameras, and it just, to me, I felt very uneasy about it.”
Stutzman said he and other colleagues in Congress are discussing legislation to put some limits on the use of Flock cameras.
“I think that this is a step too far. There has to be boundaries. There have to be controls in place. You know, of course, you can always argue. Well, we're able to catch the bad guys, but you know what? There's 95% good people out there doing the right thing. We would have taken care of that registration one way or the other. We didn't need a police officer following us to our house we to remind us.”
“Several of us are going to start looking at some legislation to rein these in to be sure that it's not crossing the line and invading people's privacy,” he added.
Some cities in Illinois have chosen to end contracts with Flock Safety, even as police departments have said they’re a useful tool in law enforcement.
In Springfield, aldermen were at odds in recent weeks over an ordinance to renew their contract with Flock for two years, costing taxpayers half a million dollars.
The city council passed the measure while allowing for more transparency and regular public reports on the cameras’ effectiveness.
“It's some simple things, and I'm just asking that to be standard and be given to us on multiple things. Transparency, equitable – making sure that these things are fair – and also reporting back to us so we as a council can, come budget time, look to address these things,” Alderman Shawn Gregory said.
Gregory was opposed to renewing the contract, but he said he was able to draft a plan for transparency based on guidance from organizations like the ACLU.
The council negotiated changes with the police department during the meeting, and passed it with two members opposed to any stipulations.
In contrast, the Madison, Wisconsin, area recently ended their partnership with Flock over data privacy risks and outside access.
Andrew Dodd, a Springfield deputy chief, said the data collected by Flock is stored on servers operated by the company, but there are security measures such as data deletion after 30 days.
He confirmed there are limits on access, aside from departments within 50 miles of the city.
“Our standard right now is within 50 miles. If an agency gets Flock, they can get access to ours because of how close we are. Outside of that 50 mile radius within the state of Illinois, even Illinois agencies have to send a request,” Dodd said.
The Center Square contributed to this story.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I hope it works. Better than using a baseball bay and wcrecutters after accessing the little door and the base of the pole.
Just call them RACIST and they will soon disappear all on their own.............
These things are placed on aluminum poles. I watched a video the other day of a gentleman informing viewers how long it takes to cut through similar-sized aluminum poles with different implements (angle grinder with cutting disk, reciprocating saw, and circular saw - all battery powered). The circular saw took about four seconds. The other two weren't even close.
This cop has nothing better to do? No real crime in Indiana?
Rein in, he!! ……. Ban them. ……PERIOD!!!
Rein in, he!! ……. Ban them. ……PERIOD!!!
Cool Hand Luke 2.
Better than beheading parking meters with a pipe cutter.
Flock every government official, from the time they wake up every day. See how fast these things come down.
I suppose I’m officially against the current surveillance state.
“Just call them RACIST and they will soon disappear all on their own.”
The Left is doing just that, by attacking the cameras because they pick up Illegals (i.e., almost always non-Whites). The 120,000 Flock Cameras sending data to a central database was NOT AN ISSUE to worry about...until the Left decided that it is an issue. For me, it sure as hell is an issue - I’d like to require a warrant before I get followed all over the country.
I have mixed feelings about them - I live right next to an elementary school - there is a four stop, well-marked crosswalk next to the school which I can see from my yard - I watch people in cars all day, every day, run the four-way stop. I’ve almost been hit by cars while walking my dogs. Cops will sit near the crosswalk every once in a while but they can’t be there all the time.
OTOH, my husband was hit with a traffic ticket by a flock camera for not paying a bridge toll - in a city he’d never been in, certainly not on his motorcycle. He was able to fight it and win, but took some effort.
I thought states learned their lesson with the outrage over red light cameras about a decade ago. I guess not.
I don’t pretend to know what the right answer is. But You do have a reduced expectation of privacy when you are out in public. And how many cases of misconduct are enough to justify restricting a technology that could potentially help police locate a missing person, rescue a victim, or prevent another crime?
As long as human beings are involved, there will be some amount of misconduct, but does that mean we reject the technology altogether or put strong rules, oversight, and accountability in place to prevent its abuse while still allowing law enforcement to use it when it can genuinely protect the public.
Where have you been?
It’s alright, we know where you’ve been.
The problem is that people run through red lights 2-3 seconds after they’ve turned red. It’s very dangerous.
1/2 second: ignore. 2-3 seconds: ticket.
self representation
Try pipe cutters, quick and quiet
I wonder how these would’ve been used during the COVID years.
Here’s a good path to totalitarianism for all would be tyrants:
-Disarm the populace as much as possible.
-Prosecute innocent people for defending themselves so those that still have guns are afraid to use them.
-Turn violent criminals back onto the street as soon as possible.
-When the people call for “leaders” to “do something”, institute mass surveillance.
You now have everything in place to impose whatever dictum you so desire.
Hey, but they’re getting 100% compliance on auto tags, them flock cameras will pay for themselves in no time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.