Additional Coverage:
In Crystal, Minnesota, Brady O’Rourke has taken a unique stand against increasing surveillance in his community. Several times a week, he walks to a busy intersection near his home carrying a long metal pole topped with a bright yellow sign. Using this makeshift tool-originally a roof rake meant for snow removal-he blocks the view of a Flock Safety camera, an automated license plate reader used by law enforcement to track vehicles.
Normally, these cameras capture every car passing by, recording license plates along with vehicle details such as make, model, and color. But when O’Rourke raises his sign, the camera’s lens is obscured, temporarily disrupting its watchful eye. Passing drivers often respond with waves, smiles, or honks of support.
“I don’t want to pay to be surveilled,” O’Rourke says. “My tax dollars are funding cameras at the end of my block.
I don’t want to live like that.” Inspired by similar acts elsewhere, such as one man in Florida who used a pool skimmer to cover cameras, O’Rourke joins a growing movement pushing back against this surveillance technology.
Flock Safety, the Atlanta-based company behind these cameras, recently held its annual conference amid widespread criticism. Its technology is used by over 5,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, contributing to a network of more than 130,000 AI-powered license plate readers scattered across American streets.
Supporters argue that these cameras help law enforcement recover stolen vehicles, find missing persons, and even deter car theft. Jeff Potts, head of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, acknowledges their utility, calling license plate readers “very helpful tools.”
Yet concerns about privacy and potential misuse loom large. Civil liberties advocates warn that centralized data collection and AI analytics enable invasive tracking of everyday movements-recording when people go to work, visit doctors, or drop children off at daycare. The risk of abuse is real: officers have reportedly used the data for stalking, immigration enforcement without consent, and surveillance related to abortion.
“The potential for police fishing expeditions is unlimited,” says Jay Stanley of the ACLU. He highlights how broad data sweeps can unfairly ensnare innocent people. Moreover, accuracy issues persist; a recent study found that Flock cameras misread license plates in more than 70% of police alerts.
Legal experts also question whether these practices violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. Clare Garvie of NYU’s Policing Project emphasizes that law enforcement should not have unrestricted access to individuals’ daily movements without proper oversight.
In response to mounting criticism, Flock Safety has implemented changes to limit data retention and monitor misuse more closely. CEO Garrett Langley stresses the company’s transparency, noting that it neither owns nor sells the data collected, and that cities control access and storage duration.
Meanwhile, resistance continues on the ground. Reports show that Flock cameras have been vandalized in at least 36 states-people have cut them down, painted them over, crashed vehicles into them, or shot at them. Social media platforms feature tongue-in-cheek tutorials on disabling the devices, while public comments often express support for these acts of defiance.
Langley cautions that such vandalism is illegal and urges citizens to address concerns through local governments. Many communities have responded: over 100 cities have deactivated or declined contracts with Flock or similar companies.
The opposition cuts across political lines, with activists from various backgrounds united in their distrust of government surveillance. Stanley calls this grassroots movement “remarkable,” noting its broad, bipartisan nature.
To channel this energy legally, advocacy group DeFlock is organizing a National Week of Action, with over 25,000 participants registered for protests, educational events, and other activities designed to voice concerns about surveillance without breaking the law.
As public debate intensifies, the balance between public safety and privacy remains a contentious issue, with individuals like Brady O’Rourke leading local efforts to reclaim some measure of control over their everyday lives.