Flock reenters commissioner discussion

Flock cameras reentered the public forum last week as a discussion on "mass surveillance" tools was added to the Macon County Board of Commissioners' agenda on Aug. 11. Commissioners voted unanimously on July 14 to terminate the county's contract with Flock, barring the Sheriff's Office from continued use of the company's automated license plate readers (LPRs or ALPRs). Following the vote, the Macon County Sheriff's Office lost access to the 12 LPRs used by the department and four contracted through Macon County Schools via grant funds. The cameras have since been removed. Flock LPRs contracted with private businesses remain in place. Flock provides surveillance cameras, software and other technology to the public and private sectors. The company has entered the national conversation in recent months, drawing criticism from civil rights organizations and organized efforts like the DeFlock movement that say the company misrepresents how it collects and accesses data using LPRs and that the use of LPRs violates privacy rights. Flock and law enforcement institutions, including representatives from the Sheriff's Office on July 14, say the readers allow them to more effectively track and identify criminal activity and missing persons. After dozens of public comments expressing opposition to Flock LPRs and a discussion between Commissioner John Shearl and Sheriff Brent Holbrooks, the board decided to cancel the county's contract. However, for Shearl, that is not enough. Following up on the Flock discussion during the board's Aug. 11 meeting, Shearl requested "discussion of mass surveillance systems in Macon County" be added to the agenda as new business. Two people spoke briefly on the Flock decision, with John Kotab comparing the use of Flock LPRs to restrictions put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and saying it is the county's responsibility not just to cover Flock cameras but to remove them. Bob Cook, who ran against Holbrooks in the 2026 primary for sheriff, said the Sheriff's Office was not being transparent regarding enforcement, public information and Flock cameras. He said he believes the office violated the law by using LPRs without first adopting a written policy on their use. "Mass surveillance" Shearl started the discussion saying, "I would like for this board to consider banning all third-party [surveillance systems], or at least giving the task to the counsel, of coming up with a plan to ban this on county property and county-owned vehicles." "There has been a huge outcry from the general public that they don't want this stuff and it's our job to protect them. We don't need these systems for a little bit of safety," he continued. "I understand the value of what they're supposed to do, but the ambitions from this company is absolutely insane, what they're going to." Shearl mentioned Virginia's Senate Bill 84, ratified in April 2026, which allows local governments to install automated systems to detect stop sign violations in school, work and pedestrian zones. "It's a civil issue, it's not a criminal issue," he said, describing the effort as a "money grab" by the government. Shearl went on to say Flock "is known to lie. They have been known to order their law enforcement officers on what to say when they present this," and suggested that Sheriff's Office testimony from July 14 about using Flock cameras to identify and return an abducted child may have been artificial. "I've asked for that information today … I want to see the evidence that that child was recovered in Macon County," he said. "And I want to see who was charged in that crime." Board Chair Josh Young said the department has used technology in the past, such as in 2017 when "we had a skid steer stolen," and the Sheriff's Office was able to recover it using camera footage. "I think we're beating this horse to absolute death," said Commissioner Barry Breeden. "We've voted them out, we've said we don't want the cameras, the company's come and picked them up, what are we doing?" "We're not attorneys," Breedene continued. "And until this is litigated out … I feel like we are just wasting a lot of time right now talking about something that we probably need to have someone else researching this." Shearl asked if it would be possible to task county attorney Eric Ridenour to come up with options for banning "third party mass surveillance." Ridenour said the only thing he believes the county could do was forbid spending on tools it does not like. "I don't think that the sheriff would dare come and ask for any other company to have cameras in our county," Breeden said. "I feel like we're just putting out a lot of fear propaganda." Commissioners Danny Antoine, Breeden and Young agreed the county has done all it can do and clarified its position on Flock cameras through their ban. Flock changes According to reporting from NC Newsline, Flock shared on Aug. 13 it will reduce the default data retention period for Flock cameras from 30 days to seven days. The company will add options to restrict data sharing between law enforcement agencies partnered with the company. "Case codes," optional codes used to help identify abuse of the system, will become mandatory except during emergencies, though each emergency search is to be flagged for later review. The ACLU said some of these changes "may be a step in the right direction," but the results will depend on implementation. Shelby Powell can be reached at reporter@thefranklinpress.com.

Flock reenters commissioner discussion

Contact Us