Hagerstown Must Choose Safety Without Sacrificing Liberty (Opinion)

In an age where buzzwords like “smart policing” dominate public safety discussions, it’s tempting for city leaders to embrace high-tech surveillance systems like those offered by Flock Safety. These automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras promise crime-fighting prowess—but at what cost? In Hagerstown, the decision to adopt such tools is not merely about modernizing policing, but about the fundamental balance between security and individual liberty.

Flock’s surveillance cameras operate by capturing and storing the location data of every vehicle that passes by—regardless of suspicion or wrongdoing. This practice shifts the nature of our public roads into something more fitting of a surveillance state, where every citizen is effectively tracked in real time. What’s more, oversight of this data collection remains thin, raising legitimate fears of misuse. These fears aren’t just theoretical; the American Civil Liberties Union and other privacy advocates have long highlighted the chilling effect these systems have on constitutionally protected activities and how they disproportionately impact lower-income and minority communities.

For all the liberty we stand to lose, the gains in public safety remain dubious. Flock’s technology does not prevent crime but reacts after the fact—often dragging innocent bystanders into a vast data net. The company’s marketing relies more on promises than results, and unlike proven methods that address the roots of crime—like poor lighting, lack of community engagement, or inadequate youth outreach—these cameras offer little in return beyond the illusion of control.

Hagerstown’s city leaders would do well to refocus on community-driven strategies that actually work. This includes practical, liberty-respecting solutions such as improved street lighting, increased foot patrols, and expanded mental health crisis teams. These efforts build public trust and address safety concerns directly, without creating an atmosphere of suspicion or resorting to invasive surveillance. They offer what surveillance can’t: a human connection and a genuine sense of shared security.

A broader national conversation is unfolding around the risks of surveillance technologies, and Hagerstown has the opportunity to lead by example. Cities should strive to be both safe and free—where citizens don’t have to choose between walking down the street and preserving their privacy. Surveillance tech like Flock may serve the interests of corporate vendors and overzealous officials, but it does little for the people who actually live here. It’s time for Hagerstown to put its trust back in its community—and away from mass surveillance. To see how widespread this problem is becoming, view the national map of Flock cameras, which is growing every day.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” I can’t say if my “SQL Injection Glitch” magnets will work to confuse these cameras or not, but they might be worth investing in. Disclaimer: RFHC gets paid for sales of these magnets.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our sponsors or clients.