Flyway ALPR Maps @GetFlyway

@SpectrumNewsMI Livonia residents showing up against Flock cameras is how these deals get stopped. Plate readers on ordinary roads should come down. Nearby towns already ended contracts, and that option is still on the table.

@fox11news Oshkosh weighing a ban on ALPR for investigations is the right debate. Plate readers that log every driver should not be on city streets. Ending that use beats writing softer rules around a standing location database.

@fox28columbus Upper Arlington's 20 Flock cameras should come down, not just get new use rules. They photograph every passing car. If any stay, every search needs a warrant, short retention, and a public audit log.

@AlexandraLeslie @wpri12 A ban on automated plate readers is the cleanest answer for Providence. Renewing Flock keeps a citywide log of where cars go. Residents should not have to trade everyday travel for a vendor network.

@KATVNews Three Little Rock officers pulled off duty for improper plate reader searches is not a fluke. The tool is a searchable file of every driver who passed a camera. These systems should come down. Where any stay, every search needs a warrant and a public log.

@txcomptroller Banning state grant money for plate readers is the right line. These cameras log every driver on ordinary roads. Cities that still buy them should fund them with local votes they have to defend in public, not quietly through grants.

@KaceeRAllen Milwaukee County pulling 42 park cameras is the right move. Parks should not be part of a plate reader dragnet. Keep them off, and delete the stored reads instead of parking the data somewhere else.

@LompocRecord Residents asking Lompoc to shut Flock down have the right priority. Recovering stolen cars does not require a standing network that photographs every driver. These cameras should come off the poles. If any stay, require a warrant per search and a public audit log.

@WSAZnews Athens dropping the Flock contract is the right call. Plate readers that log every passing car do not belong on city streets. Next step is taking the cameras down and deleting the stored reads rather than handing them to another vendor.

@Local12 A lieutenant charged with personal Flock searches is not a one-off. The tool is a searchable file of every driver who passed a camera. These systems should come down. Where any stay, every search needs a warrant and a log the public can read.

@pbpost Nearly 60% opposition is a clear signal. Plate readers that log every driver on ordinary roads should come down. If a city keeps any, residents should see the camera count, retention length, who can search, and a public audit trail.

@Gizmodo A lawsuit says deputies ran one man's plates across a national network for months because he sued the sheriff. That is what a standing plate database enables. These cameras should not be on ordinary roads. Where any stay, every search needs a warrant and a public audit log.

@ConLawWarrior The responsible-use pitch was always the weak spot. Audits run after the search, reason fields say things like 'info,' and abuse surfaces only when records get pried loose. Cameras that capture every plate invite this. Fewer cameras beats better promises.

@LucyMayCincy Flock could not produce the terms Lebanon agreed to in 2024 and pointed the city to whatever its website says now. That alone is a reason to end it. The 20 bagged cameras should stay off for good. Hope council backs the termination resolution at Tuesday's meeting.

@WJHL11 A town without a single stoplight had three Flock cameras watching residents and visitors. A petition with about 280 signatures and a unanimous council vote ended that. Small towns can say no to plate readers, and Damascus just did.

@savingprivacy One records request in Windsor turned up 590,900 searches of local camera data in about two months, 150,000 of them from Texas. Nobody in town voted for that. A trade is not fair when one side was never asked. Connecticut towns are right to switch these cameras off.

@WVNews247 Good. Flock should answer on the record, not by press release: which employees can see West Virginia footage, whether that access is audited, and which outside vendors touch the data. Lawmakers should also ask whether these cameras belong on West Virginia roads at all.

@indystar Public hearings and a council vote before any surveillance tech goes up should have been the rule from day one. Indianapolis already has five officers charged over Flock misuse. Oversight helps, but the stronger protection is not collecting every driver's location at all.

@startelegram A briefing on access, retention, sharing and misuse is overdue. Council should start with the first question: does Fort Worth need a network that photographs every passing car at all? If any cameras stay, the rules belong in city law, not department policy.

@DenverGazette Eleven cameras at $27,500 a year, and two councilmembers now want out, plus a public framework for any future surveillance tech. That is the right order: end the contract first, then require a public vote before anything like it comes back to Golden.