For years, Ohio police departments have used license plate readers to solve crimes.
But there’s growing opposition mounting against Flock Safety’s surveillance cameras, in particular.
There are more than 8,000 Flock cameras set up in Ohio communities, according to an open-source, volunteer database managed by the advocacy group DeFlock. It’s led Ohio residents to raise concerns about privacy and ask questions around how the data is being shared among law enforcement agencies.
This resistance is being met differently across the state. In Cleveland, guardrails are being put in place to ensure databases aren’t searched nationally. In Oxford, the cameras are being shut down entirely.
Ideastream reporter Matt Richmond and WVXU reporter Lilley Halloran joined The Ohio Newsroom to share how this pushback has played out on opposite sides of the state.
On the movement to get rid of Flock cameras in Cleveland
RICHMOND: Flock cameras were first installed in Cleveland in 2023 without really any public notice. Then last year, the mayor sought to expand that contract and that came shortly after a high-ranking City Council official left council to work for Flock. Then the backlash really took off.
Opponents point out that it's been used to track immigrants by federal immigration authorities, whether or not local police departments actively partner with federal authorities. Officers, on the flipside, say it is such an immensely useful tool and every investigation now starts with a search on Flock. So, the initial plan to expand was shelved and, in the hearings that have happened since then, a surprising number of council members have expressed skepticism about this tool.
On Cleveland’s decision to put up guardrails
RICHMOND: “Cleveland City Council added some slight guardrails [to the use of Flock cameras]. It went with a 6-month contract extension instead of a year and the city removed itself from the national lookup network. So other cities and federal authorities can't search for vehicles on Cleveland's cameras. And the contract is now out for renewal.
“The city has such a large contract for many other services with Axon, the taser, bodycam and drone company. It's likely that they're going to look to move to Axon as a number of other cities are moving away from Flock.”
On Oxford’s decision to ‘deFlock’
HALLORAN: Oxford is the home of Miami University. There were 14 Flock cameras there. Residents raised concerns, so the City Council punted [the issue] to its police review board to figure out what to do with them. That board heard suggestions from the police chief to keep the Flock Safety contract, but with guardrails like the ones they're trying out in Cleveland.
The board said, ‘Yeah, we think it's okay to keep these cameras. We think they're an effective crime-fighting tool.’ But the residents were still not happy. Some raised concerns about mass surveillance, but the real gripe was the data sharing with other departments. They said, ‘We trust our police department, but we don't want it to be used for reasons that are prohibited outside of Oxford.’ So the City Council considered this and ultimately voted 6-to-1 to terminate the contract and side with residents.
On other Ohio communities that have ended Flock contracts
HALLORAN: Coshocton and Wyandot counties have also ended their contracts with Flock Safety. Aside from Oxford in southwest Ohio, Pierce Township in Clermont County is getting rid of them. They're citing vandalism and the cameras being too expensive to replace. The mayor of Lebanon also recently sent a letter to Flock safety asking for answers to their concerns, but a lot of local governments are still standing firm.
I recently went to a protest in Hamilton, which is near Oxford. The city has said, ‘We are going to keep these cameras,’ but the residents say that seeing Oxford be successful [in its push to get rid of Flock cameras] has motivated them to keep protesting and showing up at City Council. So I don't think this is a debate that's going to end anytime soon.