Here's a simple litmus test for you.

If the other side is rallying around the constitution and their primary symbol is the American flag, you've probably chosen the wrong side.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/09/high-crime-lmao-how-cops-are-treating-mass-surveillance-joke

Quote:

---

When law enforcement and tech salespeople pitch ALPRs to city councils, they stick to a familiar script. They trumpet the technology, which is often provided by private companies like Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions, or Axon, as an essential tool for solving high-stakes crimes, such as car jacking, kidnapping, or murder.

But when you strip away the carefully curated talking points, the data continues to reveal a different (and frankly, ridiculous) story. An EFF analysis of ALPR search logs from Flock Safety systems shows that officers across the country are spying on drivers for completely nonsensical "reasons." Police are routinely searching the Flock database without providing any legitimate justification, making a mockery of our civil liberties by logging reasons like "LOL" (short for "laugh out loud"), "LMAO" (short for "laughing my ass off"), "sexy," and "idk" (short for "I don't know") to access sensitive ALPR location data.

And in some cases, officers are just mashing keyboard buttons rather than articulating the nature of their searches.

Flock Safety claims it has improved its system by requiring officers to select from a dropdown list of crimes before running a searchbut that only makes it easier for officers to hide improper searches behind the veneer of uniformity.

---

Okay, now I have a third reason. Flock Systems are a bunch of hacks when it comes to security on the device.

https://www.wired.com/story/hackers-flock-camera-data-shows-how-system-works/

"The breach provides an unprecedented look inside a system that Flock has described as protected by on-device encryption. The hackers were able to copy the camera's storage and recover an encryption key stored on the device, which unlocked videos of thousands of vehicle detections."

Now apply your "logic" to laws.

"If murder only happens 5 out of every 10,000 crimes, it's a non-issue."

Great reasoning there.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Now apply your "logic" to laws.

"If murder only happens 5 out of every 10,000 crimes, it's a non-issue."

Great reasoning there.

---

I didn't say that such a thing wasn't wrong (and I did say it was wrong several pages up), it's just not a reason to defund Flock.

You're either willfully distorting what I said or you didn't understand it.

We need accountability! Who is the person orchestrating this stuff? Who is the person signing off on medians and flock cameras???? These people must be held accountable and brought into the spotlight or these idiotic things will continue to happen. We get the leadership we deserve if we refuse to hold it accountable.

All seven College Station City Council members voted 'yes' on the Flock Safety contracts on Sept. 25, 2025:

Mayor John Nichols (not running)

Mark Smith (up for reelection)

William Wright (not running)

David White

Melissa McIlhaney

Bob Yancy (running for mayor)

Scott Shafer


Election is November 3rd.

Early voting starts October 19th.

"How often are these searches happening? If it happens 5 out of 10,000 times of legitimate queries it's a non-issue."

Non-issue huh?

There are lots of things that we are regulated on nowadays that have way worse odds than yours. Once again you miss the point. Government is in control and in charge of cleanup if something has gone hay wire or somehow caught by the public. This usually works out as a dismissal of charges or slap on wrist. But for me and you it would be jail time.

Putting blind trust in the government to do the right thing is lazy.

zigag09 said:

---

All seven College Station City Council members voted 'yes' on the Flock Safety contracts on Sept. 25, 2025:

Mayor John Nichols (not running)

Mark Smith (up for reelection)

William Wright (not running)

David White

Melissa McIlhaney

Bob Yancy (running for mayor)

Scott Shafer


Election is November 3rd.

Early voting starts October 19th.

---

Wow!!! Knowing the history of College Station and our movement to remove the traffic cameras the last time, this is a complete and total slap in the face to our entire community, by every one of these members. What a sick violation of trust!!!

This is why power corrupts! They are not representing us, they are representing the machine! And shame on each and every one of them!!!!

phillytex24 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

All seven College Station City Council members voted 'yes' on the Flock Safety contracts on Sept. 25, 2025:

Mayor John Nichols (not running)

Mark Smith (up for reelection)

William Wright (not running)

David White

Melissa McIlhaney

Bob Yancy (running for mayor)

Scott Shafer


Election is November 3rd.

Early voting starts October 19th.

---

Wow!!! Knowing the history of College Station and our movement to remove the traffic cameras the last time, this is a complete and total slap in the face to our entire community, by every one of these members. What a sick violation of trust!!!

This is why power corrupts! They are not representing us, they are representing the machine! And shame on each and every one of them!!!!

---

The flock camera information in 2025 is very different than the data in 2026. Should everyone have seen this coming? Maybe.

They approved it for one year and now will have a chance to review the contract.

Omperlodge said:

---

phillytex24 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

All seven College Station City Council members voted 'yes' on the Flock Safety contracts on Sept. 25, 2025:

Mayor John Nichols (not running)

Mark Smith (up for reelection)

William Wright (not running)

David White

Melissa McIlhaney

Bob Yancy (running for mayor)

Scott Shafer


Election is November 3rd.

Early voting starts October 19th.

---

Wow!!! Knowing the history of College Station and our movement to remove the traffic cameras the last time, this is a complete and total slap in the face to our entire community, by every one of these members. What a sick violation of trust!!!

This is why power corrupts! They are not representing us, they are representing the machine! And shame on each and every one of them!!!!

---

The flock camera information in 2025 is very different than the data in 2026. Should everyone have seen this coming? Maybe.

They approved it for one year and now will have a chance to review the contract.

---

The city of College Station knew they were rebuked years ago for traffic cameras, then turned around and brought them back in a different form. That's a slap in the face. It's corruption at the highest level. Government acts like it knows better than we know ourselves, and this is exactly where it has to be held accountable. They all knew the history of traffic cameras in College Station. In 2009 this city voted them out. Our movement to remove them was highly popular, and they still chose to add new cameras, knowing this would most likely be a waste of money and get repealed. So they wasted our tax dollars and slapped us in the face while doing it. Each of these people must be held accountable.

Agree to disagree. Red light cameras that send you a citation without due process and ALPR cameras such as Flock are not the same.

AgGunNut said:

---

Agree to disagree. Red light cameras that send you a citation without due process and ALPR cameras such as Flock are not the same.

---

This. Not the same thing at all.

Both might be deemed unconstitutional, but they would be for different reasons.

phillytex24 said:

---

Omperlodge said:

---

phillytex24 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

All seven College Station City Council members voted 'yes' on the Flock Safety contracts on Sept. 25, 2025:

Mayor John Nichols (not running)

Mark Smith (up for reelection)

William Wright (not running)

David White

Melissa McIlhaney

Bob Yancy (running for mayor)

Scott Shafer


Election is November 3rd.

Early voting starts October 19th.

---

Wow!!! Knowing the history of College Station and our movement to remove the traffic cameras the last time, this is a complete and total slap in the face to our entire community, by every one of these members. What a sick violation of trust!!!

This is why power corrupts! They are not representing us, they are representing the machine! And shame on each and every one of them!!!!

---

The flock camera information in 2025 is very different than the data in 2026. Should everyone have seen this coming? Maybe.

They approved it for one year and now will have a chance to review the contract.

---

Our movement to remove them was highly popular

---

It was a 52-48 win decided by less than 300 votes. Don't flatter yourself.

PS3D said:

---

phillytex24 said:

---

Omperlodge said:

---

phillytex24 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

All seven College Station City Council members voted 'yes' on the Flock Safety contracts on Sept. 25, 2025:

Mayor John Nichols (not running)

Mark Smith (up for reelection)

William Wright (not running)

David White

Melissa McIlhaney

Bob Yancy (running for mayor)

Scott Shafer


Election is November 3rd.

Early voting starts October 19th.

---

Wow!!! Knowing the history of College Station and our movement to remove the traffic cameras the last time, this is a complete and total slap in the face to our entire community, by every one of these members. What a sick violation of trust!!!

This is why power corrupts! They are not representing us, they are representing the machine! And shame on each and every one of them!!!!

---

The flock camera information in 2025 is very different than the data in 2026. Should everyone have seen this coming? Maybe.

They approved it for one year and now will have a chance to review the contract.

---

Our movement to remove them was highly popular

---

It was a 52-48 win decided by less than 300 votes. Don't flatter yourself.

---

Whenever you have a 52 to 48 split like that, it's a pretty huge win. It's like both of Barack Obama's wins. It means a huge mandate and it's a reflection of the community. It was a huge rebuke to the city of College Station.

phillytex24 said:

---

PS3D said:

---

phillytex24 said:

---

Omperlodge said:

---

phillytex24 said:

---

zigag09 said:

---

All seven College Station City Council members voted 'yes' on the Flock Safety contracts on Sept. 25, 2025:

Mayor John Nichols (not running)

Mark Smith (up for reelection)

William Wright (not running)

David White

Melissa McIlhaney

Bob Yancy (running for mayor)

Scott Shafer


Election is November 3rd.

Early voting starts October 19th.

---

Wow!!! Knowing the history of College Station and our movement to remove the traffic cameras the last time, this is a complete and total slap in the face to our entire community, by every one of these members. What a sick violation of trust!!!

This is why power corrupts! They are not representing us, they are representing the machine! And shame on each and every one of them!!!!

---

The flock camera information in 2025 is very different than the data in 2026. Should everyone have seen this coming? Maybe.

They approved it for one year and now will have a chance to review the contract.

---

Our movement to remove them was highly popular

---

It was a 52-48 win decided by less than 300 votes. Don't flatter yourself.

---

Whenever you have a 52 to 48 split like that, it's a pretty huge win. It's like both of Barack Obama's wins. It means a huge mandate and it's a reflection of the community. It was a huge rebuke to the city of College Station.

---

Nichols, Wright, and Smith won by even bigger margins in 2022, so I'm not sure what the point you're making.

Plus the red light camera issue is such a silly issue anyway to compare it to. Did anyone complain back in 2009 that they shouldn't build an overpass at Harvey Mitchell Parkway because "LoTrak was overwhelmingly rejected"? I mean, it was just as long ago (2026 vs. 2009 vs. 1991).

The "show us local abuse first" standard is a very problematic argument. It turns our Fourth Amendment protections into a procedural right that would require citizens to spend time and money to defend in court, versus a substantive right to liberty against arbitrary state intrusion.

Abuse is not easy for the public to discover because queries, sharing arrangements, retention, and audit records are controlled by a private institution. The most significant consequence is the immediate evasion of public transparency laws, effectively shielding the company from FOIA and public records requests. Because the technical mechanisms that define how data is queried and processed are locked away as privately owned Intellectual Property, the audit trail is well concealed from the public. This outsourcing model allows both the city and the private corporation to engage in a cycle of mutual blame, dodging meaningful accountability.

Furthermore, a local deployment can expose residents to outside overreach if the system permits broader network sharing. Our city government's good intentions do not dictate every downstream access decision. The relevant threat is not just a rogue CSPD officer tracking an ex-partner; it is systemic mission creep. This includes the routine use of local data by state and federal agencies for purposes stretching far beyond the City of College Station's original reasoning for the contract.

These are not abstract possibilities. Public records analysis has already documented searches tied directly to protest activity and sensitive political contexts. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently analyzed more than 12 million logged searches across 3,900 agencies, revealing a widespread lack of internal oversight. Likewise, the ACLU has detailed numerous cases where system access extended well beyond the specific agencies authorized to use local tools.

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/09/17/texas-flock-camera-pause-highways-txdot?everlit_referral=true

hmmmmmmmm why would they do this?

You know better, but I'll answer anyway.

If I step into the Bush Library, I'm in a structure that I have an expectation will have security cameras. Same as any building/business/home.

If I'm driving or biking or walking down a roadway or sidewalk, I don't expect their to be cameras tracking me at random points along the way because there is nothing there to surveil, except me and any other people that pass by.

Terrible analogy on your part to try and tell us why Big Brother is acceptable.

Try harder.

I just can't imagine being this invested in being on the wrong side of history on this surveillance state issue. Some people just don't learn from history.

91_Aggie said:

---

I just can't imagine being this invested in being on the wrong side of history on this surveillance state issue. Some people just don't learn from history.

---

No they dont. It doesnt make sense to me either but they're arguing for a mindset, not flock specifically. Safety today at the cost of no telling what tomorrow. Or just simply government knows best. Watch the usernames that have supported flock. Its the same people you see defending government in other threads. Increased taxes, big spending, fancy fire stations, more redlights, more medians, etc. Im sure some of them are directly tied to local government in some way. Either jobs or family with jobs or they work directly with them. I suspect if you were to go back to the covid threads you'd find the same usernames supporting lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc. We just dont think the same about the role of government.

Exactly! It blows my mind that people support surveillance that is simply for the reason of surveillance. I also find it wildly disingenuous when they try to compare it to a security camera tied to the security of a building or location tracking on a phone that has an entirely different primary purpose.

I have cameras on my house. It is private property.
Others doing the same on a building on their property is legal.

But, surveillance on citizens doing nothing illegal, while on public roadways is an infringement on our rights. It seems a clear violation of the 4th amendment, against unlawful searches without a warrant.

I am one who warns against all the crazy conspiracy theories and is pretty moderate in my politics & can't stand either major party (though I lean conservative). In this case, I am 100% against flock, regardless of the good things. Did we not learn our lesson after the patriot act?

There is no "should". Your argument is entirely based on a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment for public safety. Mass surveillance being a violation of the Fourth Amendment is mainstream legal argument backed by recent Supreme Court precedent, establishing that a "search" occurs whenever the government systematically breaches a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, whether physically or digitally.

There is a profound legal distinction between a localized security camera and a unified, searchable network of 120,000+ cameras nationwide. Courthouses monitor a specific federal property. Flock monitors a person's aggregate movements across space and time. Under the Mosaic Theory established in United States v. Jones and solidified in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that while individual public acts may not be private, like driving your car around College Station, compiling them into a comprehensive, retrospective digital dragnet reveals the "whole of a person's physical movements." This aggregate tracking creates a highly intimate mosaic of a person's life, including their religious, political, and personal associations, which completely pierces the traditional Third-Party Doctrine. (Third-Party Doctrine is the legal rule stating that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily share with third parties, like license plate numbers and vehicle characteristics.)
Your school analogy fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional rights operate. Public schools are an opt-in public benefit system. The Fourth Amendment is a protective right designed to act as an absolute shield against government overreach. In constitutional law, an invasive surveillance infrastructure does not need a 50%, or even a 1% abuse rate to be struck down. If it inherently infringes upon a constitutional boundary without a warrant, it is struck down, even if people consider it to be working perfectly 99.99% of the time.

KBTX chose not to release it because they are biased (not just to this topic; in general).

EliteElectric said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Paging hot wheels to the DeSantis plagiarism phone

---

This.

---

he's just waiting to see how constituents react then he'll pounce

---

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Aug. 31 ordered his state's transportation department to remove the cameras from state roads, saying he didn't want "a surveillance state."


https://www.kbtx.com/2026/09/18/texas-freezes-installation-flock-cameras-along-state-roads/