🎯 Core Discussion Principles

1. Center local control and informed consent

“Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Consider foundational values of consent to emphasize the community’s right to decide what tech gets installed—and when.

In the end, we all just want to be asked before big decisions are made about something as sensitive as ex: creating a running record of where we each drive every day.

2. Avoid partisan framing
Privacy is one of the issues on which rural communities most agree. We find that the public discussion rarely is about left vs. right, but rather:

• Local vs. corporate interests

• Public transparency vs. backroom deals

• Community safety vs. vendor overreach

3. Emphasize practical concerns first:
Lead with concerns like:

• Poor accuracy (20%+ misread rates)

• Long-term costs to taxpayers

• High risk of data hacks

• Legal liability retained by counties

  Then connect these to civil liberties principles like warrantless surveillance or freedom of expression.

4. It’s not about blaming local officials
It helps to highlight concerns with Flock's business model, not necessarily with individual officers or agencies (unless of course misconduct or another issue has occured). Many local agencies, police departments, sheriffs’ offices are sold these tools with inflated claims and little independent oversight.

As one concerned attendee of a community discussion night said:

“I may like and trust you, I may have voted for you. But what happens if we automatically give this power to this office, and then I don’t trust the person who gets this job after you?”

🔍 Talking Points by Theme

🧾 Transparency & Process

• Was public discussion held before installation?

• Did neighboring counties or towns have an open dialogue before proceeding with or rejecting this tech?

• What kind of public discussion should ideally be required before purchasing?

💸 Cost & Contract Concerns

• Initial grants sometimes subsidize Flock costs—but renewals fall to local taxpayers.

• Costs increase yearly, locking counties into Flock’s “freemium” model.

• What percent of the total budget is the Flock contract? Is there a deficit?

🛑 Risk to Safety & Privacy

• Flock shares data across a nationwide network—no warrant required.

• Errors in plate reads or “vehicle fingerprinting” have led to false accusations and trauma.

• The FBI receives automatic alerts for every “hit,” even on minor watchlists. Other agencies like the ATF and CBP also make daily searches of every camera in the system.

• Who will have oversight on how our system is used, and who accesses it? What is the process if a problem occurs?

🔓 Security Vulnerabilities

• License plate databases are major hacking targets—like CBP data leaks.

• Cameras can be exposed to the open internet if misconfigured.

• Flock refuses independent security testing.

⚖️ Legal & Civil Liberties Risks

• The system circumvents traditional warrant processes.

• Vehicle fingerprinting allows searches by political bumper sticker or custom paint—posing First Amendment risks.

• Local agencies are liable for Flock’s mistakes, not the company.

What to avoid:

• Buzzwords like “mass surveillance” without context

• Highly academic or partisan framing

• Conspiracy theories - there’s plenty of real data!

• Attacks on individual personalities (instead, focus on corporate accountability)

📬 Sample Opening Questions:

• What kind of public process would you have liked to have been part of when [the agency that purchased your area’s system] were considering [surveillance technology]?

• What concerns do you want to share with our officials?

• Does it concern you to have your daily driving records shared with thousands of outside agencies across the country?

• What reports or other accountability would you like to see for use of this system?

• Are these personal freedom and privacy matters election issues for you?