4 July 16 - 22, 2026 dallasobserver.com DALLAS OBSERVER Classified | MusiC | dish | Culture | unfair Park | Contents ▼ SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Smile for the Cameras Opposition mounts against North Texas ‘surveillance state’ BY AUSTIN WOOD W ith thousands of AI-powered cameras monitoring North Texas streets, advocates, resi- dents and officials are pushing back against what some call a “surveillance state.” As police use of drones, cameras and AI-powered license plate readers has acceler- ated across the country, activism against tech- nology designed for continuous monitoring in public areas has followed in step. Critics are uneasy with what they perceive as inva- sive surveillance, insecure data and potential abuse of the technology by law enforcement, especially given the ongoing ramp-up of im- migration enforcement in the U.S. In December, the San Marcos City Coun- cil voted against renewing a contract with Flock Safety, the leading provider of auto- mated license plate readers (ALPRs) in the U.S. Plans called for expanding Flock’s San Marcos presence from 19 to 33 ALPRs, but were thwarted by the council after signifi- cant community pushback and criticism from civil rights groups. All Flock cameras were removed by the beginning of February. San Marcos is one of over 50 municipalities to have canceled contracts with Flock in re- cent years. 600-plus eyeballs The cameras have drawn scrutiny over several controversial cases. In 2025, it was reported that authorities had tapped into 83,000 North Texas cameras to locate a woman suspected of having an abortion. The Barbed Wire reported on data collected by 404 Media in June 2025 and found that at least 180 immigration-related Flock searches had been made by five Texas law enforcement agencies. Recently, The Insti- tute for Justice published findings based on media reports and court records confirming that at least 24 motorists have been stopped, detained or jailed based on errors with the AI-driven technology. Among other groups, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been outspo- ken in its advocacy against the technology. On its website, the ACLU describes ALPRs as “creepy” and argues that, while compa- nies other than Flock sell the technology, they share a common thread. “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 ac- tors accountable if they abuse it,” the web- site reads. When the Community Police Oversight Board was briefed in December, the city of Dallas had over 600 Flock cameras monitor- ing neighborhood streets and major arteri- als. The Dallas City Council approved a contract with Flock to expand the technol- ogy in May 2025, following an initial agree- ment approved in 2022. Of the $5.7 million in funding put toward the 2025 expansion, $125,000 came in the form of grant funding from the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Immigration and Cus- toms Enforcement Agency. DeFlock, a watchdog group that com- piles data and tracks Flock cameras nation- wide, has an interactive map showing the rough locations of ALPRs and other surveil- lance technologies across the country. As of July 7, the group has mapped over 3,000 Flock cameras in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. What the flock? Commonly positioned on twelve-foot poles, Flock ALPRs scan traffic on residen- tial streets and neighborhood thorough- fares. They are pointed toward the backs of passing cars and are not intended to face private property. AI software uses the cam- eras to compile data on passing vehicles, in- cluding license plate numbers, make, model, color and unique features such as dents or bumper stickers. The data collected is then transmitted to a cloud database accessible by law enforcement agencies. “We are not relying on the software to tell us who the subject is. It’s absolutely not what we’re doing,” Lieutenant Rene Sigala told the oversight board. “It’s just giving us a set of images that we can use to compare the image that we were provided.” Steadfast in their support of the technol- ogy, Dallas Police officials have lauded Flock cameras for their usefulness in investigative work and crime deterrence. Dallas Police Chief Daniel Comeaux told The Dallas Morning News in December that he was im- pressed with the technology after it led to an arrest in a homicide case that occurred on his first day with the department. That same month, department representatives told the police oversight board that an alert from a Flock camera on a stolen vehicle led to the arrest of four individuals, one of whom was wanted on capital murder charges. At the December board meeting, police told representatives that camera placement had been prioritized in high-crime hot spots. National crime hotlists maintained by the FBI, the state of Texas and the depart- ment can be used to flag license plate num- bers associated with suspects or criminal groups. Data from the cameras is stored for a period of one year, with representatives tell- ing the oversight board the department had over 1.4 billion reads in its system at the time of the meeting. They stressed that the total was a fraction of Dallas’s vehicle traffic, roughly 8%. Of that total, 869,975 were asso- ciated with hot list data. Dallas Police Major Anthony Greer told the City Council Public Safety Committee in March that while the system can capture images of pedestrians, it lacks facial recogni- tion capabilities and is primarily designed for vehicle traffic. “Just by the nature of any camera system, could we focus in on a license plate and somebody just happened to be walking by? Absolutely,” Greer told council members. “But the primary goal of this system is li- cense plates and vehicles.” Data concerns In an era where data privacy concerns abound, some activists and watchdog groups have raised doubts about the secu- rity of Flock systems. Last year, YouTuber Benn Jordan and the technology publication 404 Media investigated the camera systems and found that 60 Flock cameras were easily accessed by unauthorized online users. Jor- dan cited outdated Samsung software as a reason for the vulnerability. DPD representatives told the Observer that the department had not used the type of camera affected by the leak, while Flock spokespeople, in a statement, called it a “limited configuration issue.” Azael Alvarez, an organizer with El Mov- imiento DFW, said his group has hosted know-your-rights workshops to help resi- dents understand the impact of the cameras in North Texas. He called Flock cameras in the area “extremely concerning” and said few people he has spoken with are aware of their presence. “If they suspect someone on the street and they just want to follow them or some- thing like that, just a random citizen, that’s concerning because it’s an infringement of rights,” he said. DPD representatives have said that the use of Flock cameras is kept within the scope of the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from warrantless searches and seizures. In a statement, a Flock spokesperson said, “Every search requires a documented reason and creates a permanent au- | UNFAIR PARK | Adobe Stock AI-powered cameras have been drawing attention across Texas over privacy concerns >> p6
