Under the cover of night, the tension in a rigged Toyota Tacoma nears palpable as we cruise the streets of a small Virginia university’s satellite campus. The vehicle is equipped with a conspicuously large disc-shaped antenna mounted on the roof and a complex array of cables spiraling into a small black box beside me. Inside the truck, two professional security researchers, Koko and Hedge—pseudonyms they prefer for anonymity—are driving the hunt for a pervasive threat in the realm of cybersecurity: AI-driven surveillance cameras.
The Surveillance Threat
Just beyond the rearview mirror, the glow of city police squad cars hints at the risks we’re taking. Hedge, seated in the passenger seat, is piecing together our route, focused intently on two iPhones illuminating his face. Meanwhile, Koko carefully navigates while monitoring a homemade device that tracks surveillance camera activity. As we approach our target, Hedge signals, “We’re going to pass it on the right.” I twist in my seat, attempting to align my phone camera with the night vision scope Koko has brought along.
Capturing Evidence
As we crawl through an intersection, I spot it—a Flock Safety surveillance camera mounted on a tall black pole. Just as its infrared flash fires, capturing our presence with blinding white light visible only through night vision, my camera records the moment. However, unbeknownst to us, the camera too captures our vehicle, our license plate, and likely my image pressed against the window.
A Coalition of Critics
In recent months, Flock Safety has transitioned from obscurity to a focal point of growing public ire. Critics ranging from leftist activists and suburban mothers to libertarian tech enthusiasts and far-right secessionists have united in their claims that the company’s vast network of surveillance cameras infringes upon the right to privacy. This widespread concern has propelled Flock into the spotlight of the 2026 election cycle, fueling discussions across political lines.
“Little cameras, watching your every move, to collect information about you without you even noticing,” argues Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed in a campaign ad, pointing directly at his opponent, Mike Rogers.
Legislative Response
Political dissent against Flock has gained momentum, evident when Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett introduced the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act, aiming to prevent the federal government from purchasing or utilizing any mass surveillance technology. “We’ve gotta put some guardrails in,” Burchett asserts, emphasizing the necessity of a warrant for surveillance activities.
Understanding Flock’s Reach
Founded in 2017, Flock primarily specializes in Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), leasing them to municipalities and community organizations. These devices create detailed databases of captured footage, ostensibly for crime prevention. While many companies offer similar technology, Flock has ascended to both market dominance and cultural notoriety. Experts warn that the Orwellian capabilities of these cameras pose severe privacy risks, leading to concerns over their security vulnerabilities.
The Invasive Nature of Surveillance
Flock’s cameras claim to focus solely on vehicles, but critics raise alarms that they also collect data on pedestrians, creating detailed profiles based on everything from bumper stickers to clothing. Data obtained is sold to anyone willing to pay, often with alarming consequences. Instances of rogue law enforcement misusing Flock data to target intimate relationships have surfaced, alongside reports of wrongful detainment stemming from flawed readings. Security experts have criticized Flock’s poor security measures, asserting that their technology is vulnerable to exploitation.
The Emergence of Digital Vigilantism
Further complicating matters is the rise of social media outrage against Flock. Content creators across the political spectrum have dedicated their platforms to exposing and thwarting Flock’s surveillance capabilities. One viral video, “Breaking the Creepy AI in Police Cameras,” released by musician Benn Jordan, garnered millions of views, inviting audiences into the intricate world of Flock and providing a sense of agency against the pervasive threat.
Wardriving: The Hunt Begins
On a quest to uncover Flock locations, I joined Koko—an experienced security consultant—and Hedge in their hunt. Together, we drive around Northern Virginia equipped with devices that detect Flock cameras. Wardriving, as they call it, involves moving through neighborhoods to uncover surveillance tech, leveraging the unique MAC addresses that distinguish Flock cameras from ordinary devices.
As night falls, tension fills the air. Koko dons a military ballistic helmet equipped with a night vision scope to navigate the dark and identify the infrared flash of Flock cameras. A trip to a nearby satellite campus uncovers the expansive reach of Flock, prompting a crucial test of whether these cameras activate upon detecting pedestrians.
Privacy and Technological Ethics
In conversation with Koko, he expresses deep-seated frustration towards the implications of such pervasive surveillance. “This technology changes the relationship of surveillance fundamentally,” he reflects, emphasizing the erosion of privacy in public settings. Flock’s cameras are positioned to record activity at all times, often without transparency or accountability. Misuse of Flock’s data, Koko warns, poses a profound risk to civil liberties.
Taking Action
As we wrap up our adventure, the conversation turns to recent Flock announcements regarding new privacy measures. Koko remains unimpressed. “This is too little too late,” he declares, echoing the concerns of many activists and researchers.
In a society grappling with rapid technological advances, the surveillance issue extends beyond just Flock cameras; it beckons a broader dialogue regarding privacy rights and technological ethics in America. As society stands at this crucial juncture, the actions taken by the public and influencers may shape the future of surveillance in the U.S., determining how much data is collected, stored, and used against us.
