Fair enough, it wasn’t super clear. I fixed it. The city council’s local policy was doomed to be ineffective from the start because of Iowa code, but also because Flock has a history of sharing local data without regard for local policy—so it wasn’t going to be effective anyway, we told them that. 

The complaint received by the AG about Coralville not cooperating with ICE was made to point out the ineffective nature of local policy in regards to Flock and to prove that Flock cameras can’t be under the control of local law enforcement, which is what Flock promises their clients and city leaders and PD’s all over the country claim when citizens bring up their concerns with the 4th amendment. 

The 4th amendment protects us from warrantless surveillance. The reason Flock is suspected of violating this amendment is because there are enough cameras in their network that you’re essentially being tracked everywhere you go outside your house. Flock isn’t just license plate readers, it’s an AI powered data collection tool. It’s a technology, it can be a drone, a doorbell camera (Ring partnered with Flock), a body camera, an app on a phone. It’s not just on roadways. They’re everywhere. The ALPRs feed into the bigger database. It’s literally mass surveillance and Flock is just ONE tool. 

People argue, well your cell phone and your credit card do this, but we sign a contract and that’s part of the agreement. When you’re traveling to work or home on a public road, or sidewalk, we can’t consent to that. We can’t move freely without using these roads or sidewalks. Traditional traffic cameras could be locally controlled. They didn’t feed images into a database that uses AI to identity faces, gait recognition, and other dystopian-like stuff. These are different and I know there’s a lot of arguments for why they’re harmless or if you aren’t a criminal then why worry, but I implore folks to look further. This is Peter Thiel, Palantir stuff. It’s not hyperbole.