Boonsboro Police Department’s Flock Camera Response is Canned Corporate Propaganda (Opinion)

You know, I wasn’t going to go this hard at Boonsboro Police Department for their Flock cameras, until they decided to become corporate shills spreading canned propaganda, in a post which just happened to be timed shortly after our coverage of Hagerstown’s Flock cameras. In a recent public statement shared via social media, the Boonsboro Police Department has addressed public concerns regarding the use of Flock camera technology, with a recent “Myth vs. Fact” post on Facebook, which they promptly shutoff comments to avoid public discourse. However, analysis of these statements, alongside similar releases from police departments nationwide, suggests a coordinated public relations effort guided by Flock Safety, the technology provider. This campaign appears designed to assuage privacy worries while promoting the widespread adoption of automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems.

Flock Safety reportedly equips law enforcement agencies with comprehensive public relations toolkits, including pre-written press releases and structured “Myth vs. Fact” templates. This approach leads to a remarkable consistency in messaging across different jurisdictions, from Boonsboro, Maryland, to Okeechobee, Florida. These shared phrases and defense strategies indicate a deliberate corporate playbook aimed at managing public backlash to surveillance technology, and utilizing public resources to become Flock’s PR department.

The recurring “Point-in-Time” defense, stating that cameras capture a single image of a vehicle’s rear and do not continuously track movements, is a direct lift from Flock’s own documentation. While technically accurate for an individual camera, this statement overlooks the reality of a networked system. When multiple cameras are deployed across a town, these individual “points in time” collectively create a detailed timeline of a resident’s movements throughout the day. This networked capability effectively transforms isolated images into a continuous record of travel patterns. And with the positioning of cameras around Boonsboro, it becomes near impossible to avoid being tracked.

How invasive is this tracking? You can just avoid the cameras if you don’t want to be tracked, right? As an example of how difficult this becomes, what would normally be a 4 minute drive from Keedysville to Boonsboro, if intentionally avoiding these tracking cameras, becomes 17 minutes, a 263% increase in travel time.

Another commonly cited point is the automatic deletion of data after 30 days. Flock trains departments to present this as a privacy safeguard. However, 30 days is a significant period to retain location data for individuals who are not under suspicion of any crime.

Flock’s assertion that “Your community owns 100% of your data and it will never be sold” is a distraction tactic. Privacy advocates are not concerned about Flock selling data for commercial advertising purposes, but rather about the potential for unwarranted government surveillance and inter-agency data sharing. By refuting a less pressing concern, the company diverts attention from the primary issue of mass data aggregation by government entities and the potential for abuse in monitoring its own citizens. This type of data aggregation is just ripe for abuse, as has been seen multiple times in recent years.

The PR strategy also involves overemphasizing the use of these cameras for high-profile, rare events, such as child abductions or pursuits of violent criminals. While police chiefs are encouraged to cite Amber Alerts and homicides, the day-to-day application of the technology often extends to less severe offenses like retail theft, vandalism, and traffic violations. This emotional appeal, drawing on dramatic scenarios, serves as a justification for a system whose routine use may be far more mundane, and also ignores that issues like Amber Alerts, stolen vehicles, or vehicles with a “be on the lookout” (BOLO) can all be accomplished with traditional ALPR systems without intrusive logging and tracking of every vehicle’s date and location.

The Boonsboro Police Department’s specific points address common public concerns. The department states that ALPRs do not identify drivers or passengers and are not used to monitor daily activities, with courts affirming no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. However, such a network of cameras, especially at town entry and exit points, can indeed construct a detailed understanding of a resident’s daily routine. Furthermore, while direct identification of occupants may not occur, license plates are directly linked to vehicle owners, enabling indirect identification. Flock’s “Vehicle Fingerprint” technology, which searches for unique vehicle traits, further enhances trackability even without a clear plate capture. The department’s claim about privacy expectations in public roads is countered by Supreme Court rulings like Carpenter v. United States, which suggest that prolonged electronic surveillance of movements can infringe upon privacy.

Regarding access restrictions, the Boonsboro department asserts that only authorized personnel have access and that other agencies require a case number for legitimate law enforcement purposes. This is contested by Flock’s “National Network” feature, which allows for opt-in data sharing across a vast interconnected system. While local policies might require a case number, the system’s design facilitates easy inter-agency sharing. The definition of “legitimate law enforcement purpose” is also noted as being broad, not requiring a warrant or probable cause, and relying heavily on an honor system without independent audits. Especially when Boonsboro Police Department’s public audit log contains such generic information like “Disturbance”, “Video”, or “Investigation”. In fact, out of 23 searches in the last 30 days, only two of Boonsboro Police Department’s “reason” entries aren’t generic.

To further reinforce that ALPRs can be used to identify drivers or passengers, on June 24, 2026, Boonsboro Police Department’s Flock Safety audit log shows a search with a reason of “welfare check on possibly suicidal person.” If people can’t be identified from Flock Safety searches, then why is law enforcement searching for people in the system?

Furthermore, the claim that cameras make a difference by solving cases, including thefts, hit-and-runs, vandalism, and traffic offenses, suffers significant “scope creep.” This argument suggests that the initial justification for major crimes quickly expands to minor offenses, and that departments may exhibit confirmation bias by attributing all solved cases to the ALPR system, rather than acknowledging the role of traditional police work or other surveillance methods.

Finally, the comparison of Flock cameras to other technologies like cell phones and navigation apps is a “False Equivalence.” Unlike opting into terms of service for personal devices, residents cannot opt out of public police surveillance. The fundamental difference lies in the power of the state; government retention of movement data is seen as qualitatively different from commercial entities using data for advertising. However, if we go with Boonsboro Police Department’s assertion that this is no different than location data collected by cell phones, then just like cell phones, law enforcement should then need a warrant to obtain it.

While ALPRs can be effective crime-fighting tools, their implementation, as presented by departments like Boonsboro, masks their function as a broad surveillance system that logs the movements of innocent citizens without warrants or explicit consent.

Shame on the Boonsboro Police Department for becoming corporate shills spreading Flock’s propaganda, and using taxpayer resources to become the PR wing of a private company. Boonsboro residents deserve better than this.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon information from Boonsboro Police Department and other similar local police department statements. All opinions are his own and do not reflect those of our clients or sponsors.

Video Spotlight