Why We Oppose Flock
Privacy. Local Control. Civil Rights.
The Case Against Mass Surveillance
Flock Safety cameras represent a fundamental shift toward mass surveillance in Woodbury. This isn't a public safety tool—it's a data collection infrastructure that threatens privacy, enables immigration enforcement, and undermines democratic oversight.
1. Privacy & Digital Rights
Flock cameras use Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) to capture and permanently record the movement of every vehicle passing through Woodbury.
- Permanent movement data: Every drive you take—to work, to religious services, to medical appointments, to protests—is recorded.
- Unregulated access: Law enforcement can query this data with minimal oversight or accountability.
- Data breaches: Like any database, Flock's repositories are potential targets for hackers and bad actors.
- Function creep: What Flock says is used for "public safety" today can be repurposed for surveillance tomorrow.
Your right to privacy includes the right to move freely without your movements being recorded and stored indefinitely. Flock fundamentally violates this right.
2. ICE Access & Immigration Enforcement
This is the most urgent concern for Minnesota communities. Flock Safety explicitly works with federal immigration agents.
- ICE integration: Flock provides data to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation operations.
- Minnesota impact: Minnesota has a large immigrant community. This technology directly threatens immigrant rights and puts drivers at risk of deportation.
- Chilling effect: Immigrant families avoid transportation, healthcare, and community services out of fear. This destabilizes communities and families.
- No due process: ALPR data can be used without warrants and often without any judicial oversight.
No immigrant should have to fear that a routine drive could lead to deportation. Woodbury should not be a tool of federal immigration enforcement.
3. Local Control & Democratic Oversight
Flock decisions should be made by residents and their elected representatives—not corporate surveillance companies.
- Corporate control: Flock Safety profits from surveillance. The company designs the system, controls the data, and sets the rules. Woodbury residents have minimal say.
- Lack of transparency: Contracts are often kept secret. Data access policies are unclear. Results are not independently verified.
- Minimal cost-benefit analysis: Woodbury should demand independent evaluation of Flock's effectiveness, not rely on Flock's own marketing.
- Irreversibility: Once deployed, these systems are difficult to remove. Woodbury is locking in permanent surveillance infrastructure.
Technology deployment decisions belong to the public, not corporations. Woodbury residents have the right to know and decide what surveillance infrastructure operates in our city.
4. Better Alternatives Exist
Woodbury doesn't need mass surveillance to improve public safety.
- Community policing: Trust-based relationships between police and residents are proven to improve safety.
- Targeted investigation: Police can deploy cameras where needed for specific investigations, with warrants and accountability.
- Pedestrian & traffic safety: Many cities improve safety through street design, lighting, and intersection improvements—not surveillance.
- Prevention & intervention: Resources spent on surveillance could go to youth programs, mental health services, and community investment.
5. Precedent: Other Cities Said No
Woodbury is not alone. Communities across the nation are rejecting Flock:
- Austin, Texas: Rejected Flock after residents demanded local control and privacy protections.
- Ithaca, New York: City council voted to protect privacy and oppose ALPR surveillance citywide.
- Saranac Lake, New York: Residents organized against Flock; city invested in alternatives instead.
- Bloomington, Minnesota: Our neighboring city conducted transparency reviews and restricted surveillance tools.
What worked: Public pressure, city council advocacy, FOIA requests, and organized coalition building. Woodbury can do the same.
📍 The Path Forward
Woodbury has a choice: embrace mass surveillance or defend privacy and local control.
We choose privacy. We choose local control. We choose democracy.