The case against Flock

Surveillance doesn't equal safety

Flock markets its cameras as public safety tools. The evidence tells a different story of wasted money, misused data, dangerous errors, and a chilling effect on everyone's freedom. Here's what Grand Rapids needs to know.

Flock Wastes Tax Dollars

AI surveillance costs cities hundreds of thousands of dollars for a system with no proven track record of preventing crime. That's money diverted from what actually keeps us safe.

Misplaced priorities. These funds could go to proven local services like mental-health response, libraries, housing, and youth programs.
No return on investment. In cities like San Diego, similar technology showed no significant impact on solving crimes like vehicle theft.
Proven solutions, not tech fantasies. Investing in people builds safety. Watching everyone does not.

Your Location Data Isn't Safe

Police claim the data is safe, but Flock's system is built for mass sharing. Records can be stored and shared with hundreds of outside agencies, including ICE.

Sharing by design. A 2020 investigation found ICE accessed plate data from self-declared sanctuary cities, undermining local policy and trust.
Hacks and leaks are inevitable. Federal agencies using similar systems have already had data hacked and published online. The only secure data is data never collected.
A threat to our neighbors. Cities are ending Flock contracts over fears the data will be used to locate and deport immigrants.

AI Errors Put Lives at Risk

Flock's system makes mistakes. In a high-stakes police encounter, a false match can turn deadly. These aren't harmless glitches.

Real-world harm. In Aurora, Colorado, a machine error led police to hold a Black family, including children, at gunpoint. The city paid $1.9 million.
Unequal justice. False matches disproportionately endanger communities of color who already face more aggressive policing.

Your Movements Are Tracked

Flock cameras record and store the movements of every vehicle, yours included, without a warrant, suspicion, or consent. That is mass surveillance.

A map of your private life. The system logs where you work, worship, protest, and seek healthcare, and stores it in a searchable database.
Targeting the innocent. In Los Angeles, an audit found over 99% of scanned plates belonged to people not suspected of any crime.
Unconstitutional searches. A federal court in Virginia is weighing whether Flock's warrantless collection violates the Fourth Amendment.

A Tool to Silence Dissent

Constant surveillance chills free expression. When people know they're tracked, they're less likely to protest, worship, or organize.

Guilt by association. Cameras capture bumper stickers and vehicle details, letting police search for cars based on political beliefs.
Chilling effect. Studies confirm surveillance deters attendance at political and religious events.
Eroding trust. Safety is built on trust between a community and its public servants, not a culture of suspicion.

Our Community, Our Choice

We don't have to accept this future. The decision rests with our City Commission, which has the authority to reject this technology now.

Cities are fighting back. San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley have restricted or banned this technology.
Buyer's remorse is real. Austin and Denver declined to renew or expand Flock contracts after seeing the true costs.
Act locally. Grand Rapids can be proactive in defending our rights and our neighbors.

Ready to do something about it?

The Grand Rapids City Commission decides whether this technology comes to our streets. Let them hear from you.

Take action →