Flock cameras are becoming a growing source of concern as communities grapple with the rapid spread of AI-powered license plate readers. The backlash highlights broader questions about how these surveillance networks collect, share and use Americans’ data — and whether the technology is expanding faster than public understanding or oversight.
Lee Humphreys
Professor and Chair, Department of Communication
Lee Humphreys is a Cornell University professor who studies the social uses and perceived effects of communication technology.
Humphreys says:
“I think initially, municipalities were interested in Flock cameras to ensure public safety in their communities, which is an important investment. But the cameras are not just capturing the license plates of vehicles that run red lights. There is a concept of ‘collateral data subjects’, which means sometimes cameras or sensors capture data about people in the process of typical data collection.
“For example, cameras might be designed to capture license plates, but also capture the faces of the driver or a passenger, or a person on the sidewalk. Often collateral data subjects don’t know cameras or sensors have collected data about them. This leads to important questions about autonomy and privacy.
“Moreover, the question about who owns the data is an important one. Flock says the customer owns and controls the data. But it’s important to note that citizens who are captured in the data do not own the data. They may be the subjects of the data or collateral data subjects, but they do not own nor control who has access to data about them and how it's shared. Flock cameras raise important privacy issues for all members of a community.”
