Understanding the Privacy Implications of Surveillance Technology in Our Community
Eaton, Colorado has recently installed Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras throughout the town. These cameras are part of a growing surveillance network that now operates in over 5,000 communities across 49 U.S. states, with more than 1,000 cameras documented in Colorado alone.
U.S. Communities with Flock Cameras
Vehicle Scans per Month Nationwide
Colorado Communities Using Flock
While proponents claim these cameras help solve crimes, they raise serious constitutional and privacy concerns for law-abiding residents:
Flock cameras photograph every vehicle that passes by and store comprehensive data in searchable databases. There is no way to opt out of having your vehicle data and location history tracked. Civil liberties organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU have described this as an example of mass surveillance that contributes to a chilling effect on civil liberties.
Research from the University of Washington revealed that federal immigration agencies like ICE and Border Patrol accessed data from at least 18 Washington cities, often without local police departments' knowledge. In Colorado, Denver's Flock cameras were accessed more than 1,400 times for immigration-related searches between June 2024 and April 2025. Some Illinois communities have terminated their Flock contracts after discovering the company violated state privacy laws by sharing data with federal immigration agents.
Flock operates a national network where data can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies. As one Flock investor explained, the system becomes more powerful as adoption grows, creating a nationwide surveillance network where police anywhere can track drivers anywhere else in the country.
The use of automated license plate readers has been challenged in court by civil rights advocates who argue it violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that a reasonable person could believe society's privacy expectations are being violated by comprehensive ALPR systems.
Colorado resident Chrisanna Elser was wrongly accused of package theft based on Flock camera data. The officer told her their evidence was a "lock. One hundred percent. No doubt." It took weeks of her collecting her own evidence to prove her innocence, highlighting how surveillance technology can reverse the presumption of innocence.
A Washington court recently ruled that Flock camera data must be released as public records upon request. This means anyone can potentially access records of your vehicle's movements, creating additional privacy risks beyond law enforcement use.
Flock has been accused of misleading the public about how its systems can be used. In Denver, officials initially denied cameras could be used for immigration enforcement before audit logs revealed over 1,400 such searches. The company previously insisted it had no federal contracts before admitting to a "pilot program" with Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.
Anaya Robinson, public policy director of ACLU Colorado, stated that Flock's national database "allowing law enforcement anywhere in the country to surveil anyone anywhere in the country, poses particular and intolerable dangers." The ACLU has called for communities to immediately cease use of the Flock network.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has emphasized that if a government agency is conducting mass surveillance, individuals should have access to data collected on them. Privacy advocate Beryl Lipton warned that allowing third-party vendors to undermine the public's right to know "is very dangerous."
Flock Safety cameras use automated license plate recognition (ALPR) combined with advanced image recognition and machine learning capabilities:
Hundreds of officers in participating departments can access the Flock system. In Denver alone, between 700 and 800 police officers have access. The data can be:
Flock cameras are typically mounted on:
This interactive map displays real Flock camera locations from the DeFlock.me community database via OpenStreetMap. Camera data is automatically loaded from community submissions and updated regularly.
If you spot a Flock camera in Eaton or the surrounding area that isn't shown on the map above:
About the Data: DeFlock.me has documented over 1,091 Flock camera locations across Colorado. This map queries that data in real-time from OpenStreetMap's database. Camera markers include direction facing, notes from contributors, and links to verify the data source.
Your voice matters! Reach out to Eaton's elected officials and police leadership to express your concerns about Flock cameras and privacy.
Jason Bollhorst
Phone: (970) 454-2212
Address: 224 1st St, Eaton, CO 80615
Office hours: Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Town Hall Phone: (970) 454-3338
Email: [email protected]
Address: 223 1st St, Eaton, CO 80615
Town Board meets 3rd Thursday of each month at 7:00 PM
Tip: Town Board meetings are open to the public. Attend the monthly meeting on the third Thursday at 7:00 PM in the Town Board Room to voice your concerns directly during public comment periods.
Dear Mayor and Town Board Members,
I am writing to express my serious concerns about the installation of Flock Safety cameras in our community. While I understand the desire to enhance public safety, I believe these cameras pose significant threats to the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding residents.
These cameras create a system of mass surveillance, tracking the movements of every resident without their consent or knowledge of how the data may be used. Recent reports have shown that similar systems in other Colorado communities and nationwide have been accessed by federal agencies for immigration enforcement, often without local knowledge or authorization.
I respectfully request that the Town Council:
Our community's values include respect for individual privacy and civil liberties. I urge you to reconsider this surveillance program.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
Learn more about Flock cameras and their impact on privacy through these informative videos and documentaries:
An in-depth look at the privacy implications of Flock surveillance cameras
Educational resource on automated license plate reader systems
Multiple communities are taking legal action against Flock cameras and ALPR surveillance. Here are the major active lawsuits and legal developments:
Status: Ongoing - Trial set for October 2025
Plaintiffs: Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington
Key Facts: Schmidt's vehicle was tracked 526 times in just 4 months by 176 Flock cameras. The lawsuit argues the warrantless mass surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment.
Legal Victory: Federal Judge Mark Davis ruled the lawsuit can proceed, rejecting Norfolk's motion to dismiss. The judge stated it's "plausible" the system violates reasonable expectations of privacy by creating a "dragnet system of surveillance."
Significance: This case could establish the first warrant requirement for ALPR databases in the nation. Flock Safety attempted to intervene in the case but was rejected by the court for being too late.
Status: Filed November 2025
Plaintiffs: SIREN (Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network) and CAIR-CA (Council on American-Islamic Relations - California)
Key Facts: San Jose has 474 ALPR cameras that tracked over 2.6 million vehicles in October 2025 alone. Cameras are positioned near sensitive locations including immigration centers, clinics, and places of worship.
Legal Argument: Violates both the Fourth Amendment and California Constitution's privacy protections. Police search the data without warrants.
Significance: California law is even more protective of location privacy than federal law, potentially strengthening the case.
Status: Second lawsuit filed November 2025
Plaintiff: Secure Justice (nonprofit led by Brian Hofer)
Key Facts: Oakland Police Department violated state law (SB34) and a previous settlement by sharing ALPR data with federal agencies over 200 times. Data was shared with ICE and agencies from "deep red states."
Previous Victory: Secure Justice won a settlement in 2024 where OPD agreed to follow state surveillance laws, but the new lawsuit alleges continued violations.
Significance: Demonstrates that even after settlements and promises, departments continue illegal data sharing practices.
These lawsuits need community support: