License Plate Readers: The False Sense of Security

The recent report from Business Insider detailing the inaccuracies of Flock Safety’s automatic license plate readers in Roseville, California, should be a wake-up call for cities and towns across the country. For 71% of the time, these cameras incorrectly flagged innocent drivers as potential felons or stolen vehicle owners.

Business Insider analyzed data from a two-year period between 2023 and 2024, during which the Roseville Police Department received over 1,400 alerts from Flock cameras intended to notify the department of vehicles associated with serious crimes. However, most of these “hits” were nothing more than false alarms.

Flock Safety attributes the inaccuracy to outdated hardware, non-standard installation locations, and Roseville’s decision to only scan vehicle backsides to avoid capturing faces. While this explanation may address technical issues, it does not justify the use of cameras that scrutinize law-abiding citizens.

The issue extends beyond technical malfunction to a matter of civil liberties. The Institute for Justice has documented numerous cases where drivers were wrongly detained or arrested due to faulty Flock camera alerts. In some instances, the consequences have been dire, such as an Arkansas police department holding an entire family at gunpoint after misreading a license plate.

This is not merely a case of bad technology; it’s also a symptom of a broader problem – our willingness to sacrifice individual rights for public safety. Cities are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these cameras, only to receive inaccurate and misleading information, raising serious questions about their effectiveness.

Cities like Roseville are setting a terrible precedent by allowing themselves to be convinced that these cameras will make them safer. The reality is, they’re creating more problems rather than addressing the root issues.

The proliferation of license plate readers raises questions about what drives this trend. Is it truly about public safety, or is it about the allure of “big data” and effortless surveillance? With over 120,000 Flock Safety cameras in place, we must consider the cost to individual rights.

As cities continue to install these cameras without scrutiny, they’re creating a culture of suspicion and mistrust. The data collected by these cameras will likely be used to build profiles on innocent citizens, all under the guise of “keeping us safe.” But who’s defining what safety means? Is it about protecting people from harm or just another excuse for government overreach?

It’s time to reassess our priorities. We can choose not to participate in this surveillance state, where citizens are treated as suspects rather than human beings with rights. Cities that have opted out of Flock Safety cameras should be commended for standing up against ineffective technology.

The consequences of our actions will be significant. If we continue down this path, we risk eroding the foundations of our democracy. We must demand more from our cities and towns: better technology, transparency in data collection, and a commitment to protecting individual rights. Anything less is unacceptable.