Flock Safety cameras are marketed as a simple proposition: if you aren’t committing crimes, you have nothing to worry about. The cameras read license plates, help police locate stolen vehicles, and sometimes assist investigators in solving serious crimes such as missing person/kidnapping cases.
No reasonable person objects to catching violent criminals.
The problem is that surveillance technology never stays confined to its original purpose. Once the infrastructure exists, it inevitably expands. History has shown that powers granted government during one era are often used in ways never imagined by the public that accepted them.
Colorado seeing the consequences
Earlier this year, Chrisanna Elser, a Denver-area woman, found herself accused of stealing a package after police relied on Flock camera data and neighborhood surveillance footage. The Columbine Valley officer told her they knew it was her because Flock had tracked her vehicle. The officer confidently said, “We have cameras everywhere in that town and you cannot get a breath of fresh air without us knowing.” The accusation turned out to be wrong. Fortunately, Elser had something many innocent people do not: surveillance footage from the home she had visited, complete with timestamps proving she could not have committed the theft. She had to prove her own innocence after technology and investigators had already decided she was guilty.
Another recent Colorado case demonstrates a different danger. Kyle Dausman repeatedly found himself stopped by police because Flock cameras incorrectly read his license plate and notified law enforcement he had an open warrant. The error continued long after authorities knew there was a problem. After the story aired, Sarah Judson, a 78-year old grandmother, came forward with a similar story of a misinterpreted license plate. She was pulled over several times and told by Boulder County there was nothing she could do to get off the “hotlist”.
Supporters often respond that these are isolated mistakes.
But when government surveillance is involved, even a small error rate affects real people. A mistaken identification isn’t merely an inconvenience. It can mean being detained, questioned, searched, or even arrested.
Mission creep
Recently, an outdoorsman in Florida documented discovering a Flock camera in a remote area where he hunted and fished. The obvious question is why an automated license plate surveillance camera was operating in such a location. If these systems are intended primarily for crime prevention in neighborhoods and urban corridors, why are they appearing in remote recreational areas? The public deserves an explanation before accepting ever-expanding surveillance infrastructure.
This is the challenge with any surveillance technology. It may begin with a narrow purpose, but over time the temptation grows to use it for broader investigations, regulatory enforcement, or simply because the data already exists.
Today’s administration may promise restraint. Tomorrow’s may not.
Every new surveillance tool requires asking more questions: What happens when it gets it wrong? What happens if the next administration is a little more authoritarian?
Chrisanna Elser, the woman falsely accused of theft, knows the answer. So does Sarah Judson, the Colorado driver repeatedly flagged because of an erroneous license plate match.
The issue isn’t whether Flock cameras can catch bad guys.
It’s whether law-abiding Coloradans are willing to tolerate a surveillance network that assumes every driver should be tracked just in case they someday become one.
Technology has the curious habit of not remaining limited to its original purpose. Social media started out as a way to keep in touch with friends and morphed into a tool to oppress speech, monitor political activity, even monitoring participation in protests and religious events. A free society should never accept that trade off without demanding strict limits, meaningful oversight, and strong constitutional protections. Technology doesn’t have to be malicious to threaten liberty. It only has to become permanent.
Vanessa Rutledge is senior fellow in emerging technology at Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver.

