Many people in Alabama are expressing concerns about Flock cameras. Flock is the most well-known brand of automated license plate readers. The cameras capture and store license-plate numbers and other data from passing cars, and law-enforcement agencies and other entities can then easily search centralized databases.
The technology has been around for decades, but the cameras are now collecting more information, thanks to AI, and are linked together, creating surveillance networks. Police say the cameras make communities safer. Opponents point to privacy and other concerns.
WBHM’s James Giles and Olivia McMurrey looked into the controversy. They spoke with two people in the Birmingham area who are taking action on opposite sides of the issue. Then they discussed what they learned.
The following highlights from their conversation have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
James Giles: Maybe we should start by telling who we each talked with. I talked with Allen Treadaway. He’s an Alabama state legislator and former Birmingham Police Department assistant chief with more than 30 years of law-enforcement experience.
Olivia McMurrey: What’s his take on license-plate-reading technology?
Giles: He’s definitely in favor of it.
Here’s what Treadaway said: “If used properly, it’s probably one of the greatest tools for law enforcement to come around in a long time -- and very, very safe in using as far as investigations and tracking down criminals, including murderers.”
He said the technology improves public safety. He recalls a homicide investigation where a young adult was killed after mistakenly getting into a vehicle thought to be an Uber.
Treadaway said the case went unsolved for three years until police connected the suspect to the murder through ballistics evidence from another case. During that time, Treadaway said, the suspect killed at least two other people.
He said that original homicide would have been solved within 48 hours with Flock cameras because investigators would have had the car’s license plate number.
Who did you speak with?
McMurrey: I talked with Darrell Nance, co-founder of DeFlock Birmingham. DeFlock is an open-source project that maps the locations of license-plate readers across the United States. Its website lists 98 local groups, including DeFlock Birmingham, but says they’re independently run.
As you can tell from the group’s name, Nance doesn’t like these cameras, which he refers to as ALPRs, automated license plate readers. He claims this kind of surveillance is unconstitutional.
Here’s how Nance explained that: “Basically, the idea is that you should have unrestricted free movement, right? You shouldn't be able to be stalked or harassed or anything like that. You can create pattern of movement, and that's the part that ALPRs I think violate is that pattern of movement. You shouldn't be able to know where you go to church, know if you went to an abortion clinic.”
He said the technology is pretty good at stolen-vehicle recovery, but he’s skeptical it improves public safety in a significant way.
He points to a recent analysis of FBI statistics in Atlanta, which has a dense network of license-plate-reading cameras and happens to be where Flock is based. That analysis found that despite an eightfold increase in the number of all types of cameras integrated into Atlanta’s surveillance program since 2021, crime-solving rates haven’t meaningfully increased.
A similar academic study after the expansion of license-plate-reading technology in Atlantic City, New Jersey, found ALPRs didn’t reduce general violent crime rates but were associated with reductions in shootings, motor vehicle thefts and property crimes. The authors of that study noted that research on these cameras has not kept pace with their proliferation and there have been only a few rigorous, independent studies of the technology’s effectiveness.
Giles: Lack of effectiveness isn’t necessarily harm. Does Nance see any other problems with the technology, besides his claim it’s unconstitutional?
McMurrey: He cites several problems, but a major one is the potential for abuse. Investigations have turned up officers using the systems for personal stalking.
He said: “People found that their ex searched for them 100 times over the course of a year, in a different state. And they're supposed to have a reason, but when you look at the audits, the reasons are left out of the vast majority of them.”
In Alabama, in Walker and St. Clair counties, five officers have been arrested or lost their jobs recently for misusing the technology.
Nance said the cameras also have been used to track political protesters.
Another concern he brought up is what happens when the AI plate-reading technology just gets it wrong.
According to Flock, under optimal conditions, its cameras accurately read more than 96% of license plate characters. But independent studies and police department analyses have found error rates of 10% to 70% under real conditions.
The technology can misread plates because of similar characters, physical obstructions, camera angle, poor lighting and more. There are cases where police have approached wrong vehicles with guns drawn.
Giles: Does Nance think there’s a way to fix these issues and still gain some benefits from the technology? Like with more rules?
McMurrey: The short answer is no.
Here’s what he said: “I think intervention at the state level to get rid of them altogether is kind of what we would, we – myself, Deflock – would want to do. More regulation around kind of what you can and can't do kind of enshrines this kind of thing instead.”
Does Treadaway address any of the concerns Nance brings up?
Giles: He does. As far as the false reads go, he describes them as human or machine error. He explains that sometimes police forget to update the system after they’ve found a vehicle and returned it to its owner. Or officers do what they’re supposed to do to remove the vehicle from the system, but a technology glitch keeps it there.
He does say safeguards should be put in place to better monitor officers’ use of these systems. But he does not agree with getting rid of the technology.
He said this: “We can do better. There’s no question. But you don’t throw away a system that is saving lives because of a technology glitch here or there.”
Treadaway also acknowledged that privacy concerns are legitimate.
“The privacy concerns are legitimate, but we cannot just discard a system that is locking up pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, rapists, burglars every day in America,” he said.
His argument is that the technology can be kept while adding more oversight around how officers use it.
McMurrey: Did he say how that could be done?
Giles: He talked specifically about tracking who searches the system and why. He said there should be a record every time someone accesses the technology, along with oversight from supervisors.
He said: “We have to have the technology any time that you log onto that system that we know you’ve logged onto it. That supervisors are reviewing your purpose of logging on.”
He discussed shorter retention periods as one possible way to address privacy concerns.
State legislators are looking to take this up in the next session. While some have gone on record saying they support banning Flock cameras altogether, Treadaway said putting safeguards in writing can fix things.
He framed it like this: “We can put it in law. We can put it in policies and procedures. We have to have the training. We have to have the oversight. If that's all done, I think you're going to alleviate 99% of the public's concerns, or very close.”
McMurrey: We should point out there’s a state law already on the books that’s supposed to do some of those things. Nance said it isn’t being enforced.
Giles: And while we expect state lawmakers to discuss this next year, at least one local government isn’t waiting. Last week, the Walker County Commission passed a Flock ban on county highways and properties. This doesn’t affect the cities and towns within the county.
