As Wisconsin cities flee Flock, its shared camera network loses value

Perhaps it’s the local summer diet of deep-fried cheese curds, corn on the cob, and Spotted Cow, but Wisconsin residents have been feeling pretty dyspeptic about Flock’s automated license plate cameras.

Over the past few months, a spate of Wisconsin towns and cities have withdrawn from Flock deals over privacy and trust concerns. As they did so, another issue revealed itself: With each city that leaves, the Flock network becomes less useful to the cities that remain. And cities are starting to notice.

Consider Dane County, which includes the city of Madison. It’s one of the most populous counties in Wisconsin. It was also a significant Flock user, with a contract for 24 license plate cameras. But after complaints from citizens and privacy experts, the Dane County Board of Supervisors on April 16 voted to cut the $80,000 in county funding for Flock cameras and banned “further expenditures on the system.”

“There are well-documented concerns about how this company operates and uses its technology to violate people’s Fourth Amendment rights [against unreasonable searches],” said County Board Chair Patrick Miles. “The board’s action supports protecting our community from a proven bad actor. We have full confidence in our Sheriff and deputies, and we are open to considering other companies that have stronger safeguards in place.”

The county’s Flock cameras soon went dark, cutting off Dane County data from the 140 other law enforcement agencies that had once accessed it. Many of these agencies were local, but they also included cops in Missouri, New York, and Tennessee.

(As for the city of Madison itself, it has avoided Flock cameras altogether. The city says it does not use any “automatic license plate readers, gunshot detection systems, or gait analysis software.”)

Monona, another Dane County city, in early May announced that its Flock contract was “under review.” The Monona police chief supports license plate cameras and said that Flock had helped solve “an enticement case involving a suspect who transported a vulnerable adult across state lines.” Still, local police were concerned about “privacy considerations” and “maintaining community trust and accountability.”