Truthout75%

The Nationwide Resistance Against Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Gaining Steam 62%

By Brett Wilkins82%

7/4/2026, 7:55:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 60.4% saturation with 487 hits. Analysis detected 2,763 faulty-reasoning hits from 806 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.5% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,075 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.90% of the article peer group.

Resistance is mounting across the United States against the increasing use of surveillance tech company Flock Safety’s cameras, with a growing number of cities canceling contracts as the artificial intelligence-powered license plate readers are quietly being installed in thousands of locations nationwide. 
State and local police departments first used the Atlanta-based company’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems for standard law enforcement purposes, but they are now being employed for a much broader range of uses, including immigration-related searches and other actions supporting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the Trump administration’s deadly anti-immigrant crackdown. 
“Flock’s ALPR cameras aren’t like your normal traffic cameras,” the ACLU explained. 
“This surveillance technology records and tracks every car that comes into view, and then an AI algorithm catalogs the make, model, color, license plate number, bumper stickers, and even scratches. 
This personal information is then uploaded into a nationwide database that any law enforcement agency with a Flock contract can search  with few regulations or oversight on how they use what they find.” 
“I think our country is in a kind of uniquely anti-surveillance environment right now, which is to say that, in a time where it seems there is nothing that is not partisan, opposition to government surveillance is nonpartisan,” ACLU privacy and surveillance attorney Chad Marlow told The Washington Times on Thursday. 
There is growing action  both legal and otherwise  to end the use of ALPRs across the country. 
According to the public information project Ban Flock Cameras, 82 Flock contracts were terminated across 28 states between August 2021 and May 2026, with 39 of those cancellations occurring in the first five months of 2026 alone. 
Even Amazon-owned Ring announced earlier this year that it would stop doing business with Flock Safety. 
Susie O’Hara, a member of Santa Cruz, California’s nominally nonpartisan City Council, told WBUR earlier this year that she grew increasingly concerned about local use of eight Flock cameras last year after learning that police were sharing data gleaned from the cameras with the company’s national network without city officials’ knowledge, a violation of state laws banning the practice. 
O’Hara became increasingly convinced that Santa Cruz should cancel its Flock contract after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good, a US citizen, in Minneapolis in January. 
“I have goose bumps on my arms thinking about the absolute chaos that was happening in Minneapolis,” she said. 
“And just the absolute insanity of what we were seeing  It was totally clear to me that we should in no way consciously be in this system at all  just no way.” 
Less than a week after Good’s killing, the Santa Cruz City Council voted to terminate the city’s Flock contract, becoming the first municipality in California to do so. 
“For us, the threat to our civil liberties was greater than any benefit we could get from the flawed product,” Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley told KQED at the time. 
Chad Kemp, who represents District 32 on the nonpartisan Dane County Board of Supervisors in Wisconsin  which in April voted to stop funding two dozen cameras leased from Flock  told The Washington Times that “there’s a public safety issue here, but there is also a privacy issue.” 
“There are serious concerns about individuals who can be monitored without their knowledge, or if it is even constitutional or ethical to track people without a warrant,” he added. 
At the national level, US Reps. 
Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) last year launched an investigation into the use of Flock cameras to track pregnant people across state lines for abortion care and to conduct unauthorized immigration enforcement operations. 
Krishnamoorthi and Sen. 
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have also urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Flock Safety “for failing to implement cybersecurity protections, allowing Americans’ personal data to be exposed to hackers, criminals, and spies to steal.” 
Their demand came after the cybersecurity firm Hudson Rock revealed that hackers stole passwords and data from at least 35 Flock customer accounts. 
In May, US Reps. 
Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced a bipartisan amendment to a bill that would prohibit state and local governments receiving federal highway funds from using ALPRs for purposes other than electronic toll collection. 
It’s not just Flock. 
Axon, Vigilant Solutions  a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions  Genetec, PlateSmart, Innova Systems, Rekor, ELSAG, Perceptics, Jenoptik, and other firms market ALPRs to law enforcement agencies, private companies, and others. 
“It doesn’t matter which company has its creepy cameras in your neighborhood,” the ACLU said, “they all have the same problems: a lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation into how they collect, store, and use our data, and how to hold public and private actors accountable if they abuse it.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.6%Brett Wilkins: 5.2%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.5%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Brett Wilkins: 5.3%Truthout: 3.4%Availability Heuristic16.9%This article: 6.6%Brett Wilkins: 1.1%Truthout: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.6%This article: 6.7%Brett Wilkins: 0.7%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 1.5%Truthout: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%Brett Wilkins: 15.9%Truthout: 10.1%Framing Effect24.9%This article: 3.7%Brett Wilkins: 2.4%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion3.7%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Brett Wilkins: 3.0%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.8%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 60.4%Brett Wilkins: 26.7%Truthout: 12.2%Negativity Bias60.4%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.3%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 1.0%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.6%Truthout: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 2.1%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Brett Wilkins: 5.4%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias10.0%This article: 2.0%Brett Wilkins: 2.8%Truthout: 1.0%Halo Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 1.3%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.7%Brett Wilkins: 2.8%Truthout: 1.2%Recency Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.4%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 2.1%Truthout: 1.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.4%Brett Wilkins: 6.4%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority18.4%This article: 4.2%Brett Wilkins: 3.3%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.1%Truthout: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.3%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.9%Brett Wilkins: 7.8%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization11.9%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 1.9%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.3%Brett Wilkins: 1.4%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 30.4%Brett Wilkins: 19.4%Truthout: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion30.4%This article: 4.3%Brett Wilkins: 2.4%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question4.3%This article: 16.4%Brett Wilkins: 4.8%Truthout: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.4%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.9%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.7%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.5%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.7%Brett Wilkins: 4.5%Truthout: 2.8%Anecdotal3.7%This article: 6.2%Brett Wilkins: 0.6%Truthout: 0.2%No True Scotsman6.2%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 1.0%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.7%Brett Wilkins: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground3.7%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.0%Brett Wilkins: 2.8%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote13.0%This article: 18.2%Brett Wilkins: 3.7%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection18.2%This article: 19.9%Brett Wilkins: 11.2%Truthout: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice19.9%This article: 9.9%Brett Wilkins: 3.9%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination9.9%This article: 15.3%Brett Wilkins: 13.4%Truthout: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias15.3%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 0.1%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Wilkins: 1.4%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

806 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers57%attributed speech345writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 100.0% coverageACLU • 12 words • 100.0% coverageACLU • 30 words • 100.0% coverageACLU • 34 words • 100.0% coverageChad Marlow • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageBan Flock Cameras • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSusie O’Hara • 59 words • 100.0% coverageSusie O’Hara • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSusie O’Hara • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSusie O’Hara • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageFred Keeley • 30 words • 0.0% coverageChad Kemp • 49 words • 0.0% coverageChad Kemp • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageACLU • 50 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chad Marlow

100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words11% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+90.1 ptsWriter: 9.9%Chad Marlow: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-46.4 ptsWriter: 46.4%Chad Marlow: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-35.7 ptsWriter: 35.7%Chad Marlow: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.