“You are being watched.”
That was the opening line for a TV series a few years back called Person of Interest, billed then as a sci-fi show, though it barely was at the time, and really isn’t at all now. The key component was a computer system capable of tracking the movements and activities of just about everyone, able to predict if they might do something nefarious.
It was brought to mind by the recent rash of headlines, in Idaho but also nationally, about mass surveillance and a company called Flock Safety.
Flock, based in Atlanta, provides local governments with cameras and a comprehensive image data network that captures traffic activity, operating Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). The website DeFlock Idaho (which, as its name indicates, opposes the effort) says that “When a vehicle passes one of these cameras, it automatically captures the license plate number, vehicle make, color, and any distinguishing features such as roof racks, tool boxes, damage, dents, political stickers, and many others, along with the date, time, and precise location. That data is uploaded immediately to Flock’s private cloud servers. Flock cameras run continuously. Every vehicle that passes is logged, stored, and made searchable whether or not the driver has done anything wrong, is under any investigation, or has ever had any contact with law enforcement.”
There are a lot of these cameras: More than 100,000 nationally, almost 90% from Flock Safety. (Many of the rest, including those in Meridian, use the Axon Outpost Automated License Plate Reader system.) There is no official list of where all the cameras are located, though some unofficial maps have been constructed.
The intention is public safety. Flock says it “brings together the tools that organizations rely on every day, helping law enforcement, schools, businesses, and neighborhoods respond faster, investigate more effectively, and work together from the same platform.” It said (or suggested) that 10,000 missing people were found, massive numbers of stolen vehicles were located, and law enforcement used Flock evidence in clearing numerous crimes. The law enforcement usefulness seems evident.
In Idaho, a 2025 state law says “data shall not be used for any purpose other than the investigation of felony or misdemeanor crimes or traffic accidents or to search for missing or endangered persons.”
For some people that’s good enough, but it makes many others uneasy. Any tool once created can be abused. Exactly who or what organizations might gain access to the information now, or in the future, isn’t crystal clear, though the basic usage is stated to be for law enforcement and safety. One news story said the “Twin Falls Police Department ALPR systems have been searched for immigration-related purposes at least 631 times across March, May and June of 2026.” Cambridge Analytica reported in June that “Over a dozen documented cases across multiple states show officers using Flock Safety’s network to stalk ex-partners and conduct unauthorized surveillance, resulting in criminal charges and terminations.” The Washington Post counted 50.
Not to mention that even carefully designed computer systems can be hacked by outsiders.
A lot of this explains why ALPRs have become one of the most explosive local topics in Idaho this year. And it’s not theoretical, because most of Idaho’s larger cities have ALP contracts in place already.
Now quite a few residents are getting upset about them. Big crowds appeared at city meetings in Idaho Falls and Caldwell. Pocatello’s city council is taking a close look at the cameras, with concerns in mind.
At least two Idaho local governments have rejected the cameras: Jerome city and Clearwater County, which is letting an agreement lapse. Idaho Falls is adjusting its contract. Hayden’s city council told concerned residents the cameras aren’t coming there.
Post Falls Mayor Randy Westlund said he is “firmly opposed to unconstitutional mass surveillance and the construction of large national databases which track the movement of citizens.”
The point of all this isn’t to weigh in on one side of this: ALPRs clearly have both pluses and minuses, with some clear benefits and some clear risks and problems. The point is that these issues should be hashed out in public, with the public, before the program is simply launched.
As it is, the politics and management of the program seem likely to become messy.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In