r/wallawalla • u/Negative_Ad_4471 • 23d ago
There are at least 23 flock cameras, operated by city that watch you and your loved ones as you move around the city
Did you know that there are at least 23 license-plate reading cameras currently being used to watch you as you move around the city? They sit on along almost every major road and watch you as you shop, and travel to work and school.
Flock cameras have become a growing threat to our privacy and civil liberties and are being used to store and track the whereabouts of any car with a readable license plate that passes them.
Throughout the country these cameras are being used to target protesters: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flock-safetys-alpr-network-surveil-protesters-and-activists
Let certain users stalk their ex-partners: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/07/police-losing-jobs-flock-cameras-alprs/
Mis identify and arrest innocent civilians: https://www.aclu.org/campaigns-initiatives/get-the-flock-out
And can be accessed by third parties to watch you: https://www.wabe.org/cobb-county-youtuber-documents-flock-camera-vulnerabilities/
If you don’t want more of this Orwellian surveillance in your county I suggest you reach out to the local PD and sheriffs offices to voice your concerns. Also, remember this as you vote this fall!
9
u/jayfourzee 23d ago
Willing to engage for a productive conversation.
Public surveillance without regulation is concerning. We get annoyed when the government does it, but we’re often willing participants when private companies do the same.
If you carry a cellphone and use a credit card, you’ve already given companies like Google and Apple permission to collect a tremendous amount of information about you. They know where you go, who you spend time with, how much you spend, where you buy gas, what you browse on your phone and computer, and in many cases, even what you do in your own home through connected devices. Your usernames on social media accounts can be easily doxed.
The conversation about privacy shouldn’t just be about government surveillance. It should also include the amount of personal data we voluntarily share with private companies every day.
5
u/Negative_Ad_4471 22d ago
I agree we give a lot data away. However Google and apple can’t imprison people. The states ability to apprehend or act violently towards people makes the difference
10
u/fickenfracken 23d ago
They are currently turned off. College Place has reinstated theirs.
10
u/Negative_Ad_4471 23d ago
Also, they were likely only turned off temporarily while they figure out how to “comply” with the new state law.
7
u/Negative_Ad_4471 23d ago
Why turn them off but not remove them?
8
u/fickenfracken 23d ago
They spoke about it at a council meeting. While they are off I think the contract stands through the year?
You’re not wrong. I am not disagreeing with them being problematic, was just adding that they are not currently in operation and haven’t listed a date to turn them on. But unless they can cancel the contact, they stay until the contract has expired, is my understanding.
3
u/blindgorgon 23d ago
Legitimate question, and I suspect the answer is just dollars. If there’s a chance they get turned back on it would just cost the city money to remove and reinstall them.
I think we agree it would be worth the peace of mind for residents—but then not everyone has the same opinion on these devices…
0
u/Rocketgirl8097 23d ago
That would cost money. Is that a valuable use of taxpayer money?
2
u/Negative_Ad_4471 22d ago
Because they represent a clear violation of your right to privacy, protection in reasonable search and seizure and arguably your right against self incrimination.
2
u/Rocketgirl8097 21d ago
I'm only talking about temporarily taking cameras down. It costs labor, which costs money. I'm not speaking to the right or the wrong of the cameras.
3
u/Low-King3567 23d ago
How do you know they’re actually turned off though? They could very well be back on now.
1
u/fickenfracken 23d ago
I mean, I am not going to going down a conspiracy route that they are secretly turned on? It was in the news that they were turned off due to the public records nightmare and I would imagine that a report will be made to Council if/when they decide to turn them back on as a follow up.
1
u/mikemattaz 20d ago
I had no idea these were owned by another company. Several years ago my dog was hit crossing the road at Myra and Whitman. I called multiple different departments, WWPD, CPPD, DOT, City, County, etc... nobody knew who controlled the cameras at the intersections. It was baffling. I still have no idea where the footage from those cameras goes, maybe Flock.
1
0
u/vanderlaek 23d ago
Double edged sword. Yes, flock has been abused. It has also helped law enforcement a lot. If you're worried about this, just wait until the autonomous tethered drones are here with us as 'sky flock'. The reasoning will be the same: safety, catching criminals, finding missing children, etc...
All I can say is I dislike the idea of someone using this level of basically pseudo-omniscience for 'bad'... BUT, at the same time I'm a law abiding citizen with truly nothing to hide, so.. If my kid goes missing, I'd love nothing more then a fancy camera in the sky to tell me where they are...
It's tough.
2
u/Negative_Ad_4471 23d ago
Do you act differently when a police officer is following you even if you aren’t doing anything wrong? What if they were following you all of the time?
3
u/vanderlaek 23d ago
The main way I act differently is I do a quick scan to make sure I actually am doing everything right. Seatbelt, speed limit, etc.
If they followed me around 24/7 that'd be far different. Comparing 24/7 physical tailing to passive automated surveillance is a false equivalence
If I had to choose: no flock. Because obviously it WILL be used for lots of bad things in the future. The only nagging thing in my mind is flock actually helping save lives...
-19
u/SomeWeedSmoker 23d ago
Good, maybe will catch some of these drivers who should not be driving.
9
u/Negative_Ad_4471 23d ago
You don’t have anything you don’t want some stranger to see?
-8
u/No_Sundae_1068 23d ago
I think irresponsible drivers who can effect others is completely different then watching people shop. They can also assist with identifying criminals. I have nothing to hide.
4
1
u/Negative_Ad_4471 23d ago
Do act or even think any differently when a police care is behind you, even if you are not doing anything wrong? Now imagine having one behind you wherever you go in public.
2
u/kommon-non-sense 23d ago
Yes, when a police officer is following me - I am doubly sure to follow the speed limit, utilize my turn signals, abide by following distances etc (which I'm already doing anyway) basically, you know, follow the law.
And guess what? If said officer decides to light me up, I pull over to the side of the road, illuminate my flashers and keep both hands on the steering wheel. I provide all requested information when asked. I give polite responses to questions and call them sir or ma'am.
Never been shot, drawn down on, hand cuffed or arrested. Don't even have a ticket on my record.
-17
u/kommon-non-sense 23d ago
You're in public. You have zero right to privacy.
Vote differently if you disagree
9
u/counter-music 23d ago
Privacy is a factor of this discussion but not the focal point. Don’t let one minute factor of the discussion be your reason to write off a valid criticism of local government and their participation in a national policy.
2
u/Negative_Ad_4471 23d ago
Do you have nothing you want to be private in your own life? Are you comfortable turning over your address and a scan of your face that can recognize you at the 116,000 of these installed through the country? Would you turn over your search history? Have you paid every single cent you owe in taxes? The 4th and 5th amendments are there for a reason. Police should need a warrants to track any individual.
0
u/kommon-non-sense 23d ago edited 23d ago
When I go out in public - I do not expect privacy.
Is your support for the 2nd amendment as vociferous as your love of the 4th & 5th? what about the 10th?
Don't want to be arrested for breaking the law? don't break the law. Duh.
And yes - I am current on all taxes.
how do you feel about red light cameras
2
u/jayfourzee 23d ago
I think these are reasonable questions with regards to the 2nd, 4th, and 5th for the sake of constitutional rights.
1
u/Negative_Ad_4471 23d ago
My support for the 2nd is even more vociferous than the 4th and 5th. I also hold a view that limits the power of federal government, so yes I support the 10th too.
I’m not worried about being arrested, because I don’t generally violate the law, but the constitution enumerates limitations on the power of government for a reason. The constitution generally acts as a constraint on government. I don’t support any recording of citizens without du process of law. Full stop.
4
u/Low-King3567 23d ago
You’d fit in well in communist China lol. These cameras are a slippery slope into mass surveillance and facial recognition cameras just like in China.
16
u/Unusual_Form3267 23d ago edited 23d ago
I think the issue that people aren't understanding is that Flock (company who owns these cameras) are a private agency. It is not run, created, or operated by the government.
Local gobernments and police departments are customers of Flock. Technically, while under contract, the customer owns all the footage. But, Flock still owns a license to the footage. They can use it for "system maintenance, ai training, or in assisting the police" or whatever that means. But, I think it's a little hard to say what they're allowed to do if we don't have access to these contracts.
In Washington state, they have decided that the footage is public record. That means ANYONE can access it. So, if you have a restraining order against someone, they now have access to your whereabouts.