Cancel Houston’s Flock Safety Contract!
The Issue
Stop Automated License Plate Surveillance in
Houston , TX
Petition to: Houston City Council, Houston Police Department, and the City of Houston, Tx
The Ask:
We call on the City of Houston to reject the installation and use of automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera networks (including systems from Flock Safety and similar vendors) within city limits, and to require full public disclosure, an independent privacy audit, and community approval before any such system is deployed or renewed.
Every day, our fundamental right to privacy is being eroded by the pervasive surveillance of AI-driven technologies. In Houston and across Harris County, Flock and similar surveillance cameras have quietly been installed, monitoring our movements without our consent. This is not just a technological advancement—it is an invasion of our personal space and raises serious concerns about our Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment was designed to safeguard us from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. However, with these surveillance cameras, our movements can be tracked without us knowing, and the data collected can be accessed without a warrant. In Houston, a Houston Chronicle investigation found nearly 470,000 Flock searches in the records it examined, with roughly two-thirds using vague search reasons such as “investigation” or “suspect.” This raises a serious question: how can we trust a system with this much information about us when officers aren’t always required to clearly explain why they are searching it?
We have already seen examples of what can happen when this technology is abused. In Fort Bend County, a sheriff’s lieutenant admitted to using Flock to search one license plate 41 times and another 148 times for reasons unrelated to official law-enforcement work. In Pasadena, a police sergeant was accused of using Flock to track and stalk a female officer and resigned while under investigation. In Baytown, a police officer was accused of misusing Flock, resulting in both an internal and criminal investigation. And now, three Harris County Sheriff’s deputies have had their Flock access suspended while the department investigates possible misuse. These are not hypothetical concerns happening somewhere across the country—they are happening right here in the Houston area.
And it doesn't stop at license plates. These systems are marketed as "plate readers," but the cameras capture far more than plates, vehicle make, model, and color, distinguishing features like bumper stickers and dents, and in many deployments, the people themselves: faces, clothing, even tattoos. Some systems log pets and other animals in frame. This is full-scene surveillance sold under a narrower name.
These systems are also not exclusively for vehicle traffic. These cameras are increasingly deployed at the entrances to parks, greenways, and other recreation areas... places residents go to walk, bike, and let their kids play, not places anyone expects to be logged into a searchable database. Some systems go further still, capturing the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals of nearby devices, meaning your phone, smartwatch, or car's own wireless systems can be fingerprinted and tracked even when your plate isn't the target.
This should worry parents most of all. Many Houston families already go out of their way to protect their kids' privacy, keeping photos off social media, being careful about tagging locations, teaching kids not to share where they'll be and when. That instinct is exactly right, and these cameras undercut it entirely. A camera at the park entrance doesn't ask a parent's permission before logging their child's face, their car, and the time they showed up to the same playground every Tuesday after school. A camera near a school zone or youth sports field builds the same kind of pattern, who picks up which kid, when, how often, that families spend real effort trying not to put online. The privacy protections parents choose for their kids shouldn't be quietly overridden by a government camera they never agreed to.
Imagine stepping out your front door, driving to work, or simply enjoying your community, yet being constantly observed by unblinking eyes. These cameras can capture images of vehicles not only on public streets but also at places such as parking lots, neighborhood entrances, and other private or semi-private locations. Flock cameras have been documented at locations around Houston including the Galleria and neighborhood entrances, while community researchers have identified unusual placements in other parts of Texas, including a report of multiple Flock cameras pointed toward a skate park in Amarillo. Even if every camera has a legitimate purpose, the public deserves to know exactly where these cameras are, what they are pointed at, and why they are there.
The proliferation of such technology poses a significant threat, potentially leading to abuses of power and unwarranted intrusion into our private lives. We have already seen this potential become reality. The Fort Bend case alone shows how information collected for law enforcement can be accessed for personal reasons. If an officer can search the movements of a person’s vehicle dozens or even hundreds of times without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, then stronger safeguards clearly need to exist.
The manufacturers and cities implementing this technology argue for increased safety and law enforcement efficiency, but at what cost? There is a major difference between using a camera to locate a stolen vehicle and creating a system capable of building a history of where ordinary people travel. A person shouldn’t have to be suspected of a crime for their movements to be recorded, stored, and potentially searched.
We must act now to protect our privacy and address this growing problem. Let’s urge our local leaders to stop the unchecked expansion of Flock and similar surveillance systems and demand transparency and accountability in any surveillance initiatives. Privacy cannot become a relic of the past; it needs to be a preserved right for all of us to enjoy now and in the future.
What We're Asking For:
No ALPR deployment without a public vote or council hearing with real notice, not a line item buried in a budget meeting.
Full transparency on which vendor, how much data is collected, how long it's retained, and who else it's shared with, including other police departments, state agencies, and federal agencies.
An independent audit of any existing or proposed system's privacy and security practices before renewal.
A hard retention limit and a ban on data-sharing with agencies outside Houston jurisdiction absent a warrant.
Public reporting, at minimum annually, on how the system has actually been used, not just how it's been marketed.
Houston residents deserve a real conversation about what kind of town we want to live in, one where trust in our neighbors and our police doesn't depend on a permanent camera record of everywhere we've driven.
Join me in fighting back against the encroachment on our freedoms. Sign this petition to demand the removal of Flock and similar surveillance cameras from our neighborhoods. Let’s stand together to protect our privacy rights and reinforce the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Together, we can make our voices heard and reclaim our right to live, work, and travel through our own communities without being constantly tracked.
The Ask:
We call on the City of Houston to reject the installation and use of automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera networks (including systems from Flock Safety and similar vendors) within city limits, and to require full public disclosure, an independent privacy audit, and community approval before any such system is deployed or renewed.
Every day, our fundamental right to privacy is being eroded by the pervasive surveillance of AI-driven technologies. In Houston and across Harris County, Flock and similar surveillance cameras have quietly been installed, monitoring our movements without our consent. This is not just a technological advancement—it is an invasion of our personal space and raises serious concerns about our Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment was designed to safeguard us from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. However, with these surveillance cameras, our movements can be tracked without us knowing, and the data collected can be accessed without a warrant. In Houston, a Houston Chronicle investigation found nearly 470,000 Flock searches in the records it examined, with roughly two-thirds using vague search reasons such as “investigation” or “suspect.” This raises a serious question: how can we trust a system with this much information about us when officers aren’t always required to clearly explain why they are searching it?
We have already seen examples of what can happen when this technology is abused. In Fort Bend County, a sheriff’s lieutenant admitted to using Flock to search one license plate 41 times and another 148 times for reasons unrelated to official law-enforcement work. In Pasadena, a police sergeant was accused of using Flock to track and stalk a female officer and resigned while under investigation. In Baytown, a police officer was accused of misusing Flock, resulting in both an internal and criminal investigation. And now, three Harris County Sheriff’s deputies have had their Flock access suspended while the department investigates possible misuse. These are not hypothetical concerns happening somewhere across the country—they are happening right here in the Houston area.
And it doesn't stop at license plates. These systems are marketed as "plate readers," but the cameras capture far more than plates, vehicle make, model, and color, distinguishing features like bumper stickers and dents, and in many deployments, the people themselves: faces, clothing, even tattoos. Some systems log pets and other animals in frame. This is full-scene surveillance sold under a narrower name.
These systems are also not exclusively for vehicle traffic. These cameras are increasingly deployed at the entrances to parks, greenways, and other recreation areas... places residents go to walk, bike, and let their kids play, not places anyone expects to be logged into a searchable database. Some systems go further still, capturing the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals of nearby devices, meaning your phone, smartwatch, or car's own wireless systems can be fingerprinted and tracked even when your plate isn't the target.
This should worry parents most of all. Many Houston families already go out of their way to protect their kids' privacy, keeping photos off social media, being careful about tagging locations, teaching kids not to share where they'll be and when. That instinct is exactly right, and these cameras undercut it entirely. A camera at the park entrance doesn't ask a parent's permission before logging their child's face, their car, and the time they showed up to the same playground every Tuesday after school. A camera near a school zone or youth sports field builds the same kind of pattern, who picks up which kid, when, how often, that families spend real effort trying not to put online. The privacy protections parents choose for their kids shouldn't be quietly overridden by a government camera they never agreed to.
Imagine stepping out your front door, driving to work, or simply enjoying your community, yet being constantly observed by unblinking eyes. These cameras can capture images of vehicles not only on public streets but also at places such as parking lots, neighborhood entrances, and other private or semi-private locations. Flock cameras have been documented at locations around Houston including the Galleria and neighborhood entrances, while community researchers have identified unusual placements in other parts of Texas, including a report of multiple Flock cameras pointed toward a skate park in Amarillo. Even if every camera has a legitimate purpose, the public deserves to know exactly where these cameras are, what they are pointed at, and why they are there.
The proliferation of such technology poses a significant threat, potentially leading to abuses of power and unwarranted intrusion into our private lives. We have already seen this potential become reality. The Fort Bend case alone shows how information collected for law enforcement can be accessed for personal reasons. If an officer can search the movements of a person’s vehicle dozens or even hundreds of times without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, then stronger safeguards clearly need to exist.
The manufacturers and cities implementing this technology argue for increased safety and law enforcement efficiency, but at what cost? There is a major difference between using a camera to locate a stolen vehicle and creating a system capable of building a history of where ordinary people travel. A person shouldn’t have to be suspected of a crime for their movements to be recorded, stored, and potentially searched.
We must act now to protect our privacy and address this growing problem. Let’s urge our local leaders to stop the unchecked expansion of Flock and similar surveillance systems and demand transparency and accountability in any surveillance initiatives. Privacy cannot become a relic of the past; it needs to be a preserved right for all of us to enjoy now and in the future.
What We're Asking For:
No ALPR deployment without a public vote or council hearing with real notice, not a line item buried in a budget meeting.
Full transparency on which vendor, how much data is collected, how long it's retained, and who else it's shared with, including other police departments, state agencies, and federal agencies.
An independent audit of any existing or proposed system's privacy and security practices before renewal.
A hard retention limit and a ban on data-sharing with agencies outside Auburn's jurisdiction absent a warrant.
Public reporting, at minimum annually, on how the system has actually been used, not just how it's been marketed.
Auburn residents deserve a real conversation about what kind of town we want to live in, one where trust in our neighbors and our police Anacn't danand an a narmanent camara record of everywhere we’ve driven.
Join me in fighting back against the encroachment on our freedoms. Sign this petition to demand the removal of Flock and similar surveillance cameras from our neighborhoods. Let’s stand together to protect our privacy rights and reinforce the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Together, we can make our voices heard and reclaim our right to live, work, and travel through our own communities without being constantly tracked.
159
The Issue
Stop Automated License Plate Surveillance in
Houston , TX
Petition to: Houston City Council, Houston Police Department, and the City of Houston, Tx
The Ask:
We call on the City of Houston to reject the installation and use of automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera networks (including systems from Flock Safety and similar vendors) within city limits, and to require full public disclosure, an independent privacy audit, and community approval before any such system is deployed or renewed.
Every day, our fundamental right to privacy is being eroded by the pervasive surveillance of AI-driven technologies. In Houston and across Harris County, Flock and similar surveillance cameras have quietly been installed, monitoring our movements without our consent. This is not just a technological advancement—it is an invasion of our personal space and raises serious concerns about our Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment was designed to safeguard us from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. However, with these surveillance cameras, our movements can be tracked without us knowing, and the data collected can be accessed without a warrant. In Houston, a Houston Chronicle investigation found nearly 470,000 Flock searches in the records it examined, with roughly two-thirds using vague search reasons such as “investigation” or “suspect.” This raises a serious question: how can we trust a system with this much information about us when officers aren’t always required to clearly explain why they are searching it?
We have already seen examples of what can happen when this technology is abused. In Fort Bend County, a sheriff’s lieutenant admitted to using Flock to search one license plate 41 times and another 148 times for reasons unrelated to official law-enforcement work. In Pasadena, a police sergeant was accused of using Flock to track and stalk a female officer and resigned while under investigation. In Baytown, a police officer was accused of misusing Flock, resulting in both an internal and criminal investigation. And now, three Harris County Sheriff’s deputies have had their Flock access suspended while the department investigates possible misuse. These are not hypothetical concerns happening somewhere across the country—they are happening right here in the Houston area.
And it doesn't stop at license plates. These systems are marketed as "plate readers," but the cameras capture far more than plates, vehicle make, model, and color, distinguishing features like bumper stickers and dents, and in many deployments, the people themselves: faces, clothing, even tattoos. Some systems log pets and other animals in frame. This is full-scene surveillance sold under a narrower name.
These systems are also not exclusively for vehicle traffic. These cameras are increasingly deployed at the entrances to parks, greenways, and other recreation areas... places residents go to walk, bike, and let their kids play, not places anyone expects to be logged into a searchable database. Some systems go further still, capturing the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals of nearby devices, meaning your phone, smartwatch, or car's own wireless systems can be fingerprinted and tracked even when your plate isn't the target.
This should worry parents most of all. Many Houston families already go out of their way to protect their kids' privacy, keeping photos off social media, being careful about tagging locations, teaching kids not to share where they'll be and when. That instinct is exactly right, and these cameras undercut it entirely. A camera at the park entrance doesn't ask a parent's permission before logging their child's face, their car, and the time they showed up to the same playground every Tuesday after school. A camera near a school zone or youth sports field builds the same kind of pattern, who picks up which kid, when, how often, that families spend real effort trying not to put online. The privacy protections parents choose for their kids shouldn't be quietly overridden by a government camera they never agreed to.
Imagine stepping out your front door, driving to work, or simply enjoying your community, yet being constantly observed by unblinking eyes. These cameras can capture images of vehicles not only on public streets but also at places such as parking lots, neighborhood entrances, and other private or semi-private locations. Flock cameras have been documented at locations around Houston including the Galleria and neighborhood entrances, while community researchers have identified unusual placements in other parts of Texas, including a report of multiple Flock cameras pointed toward a skate park in Amarillo. Even if every camera has a legitimate purpose, the public deserves to know exactly where these cameras are, what they are pointed at, and why they are there.
The proliferation of such technology poses a significant threat, potentially leading to abuses of power and unwarranted intrusion into our private lives. We have already seen this potential become reality. The Fort Bend case alone shows how information collected for law enforcement can be accessed for personal reasons. If an officer can search the movements of a person’s vehicle dozens or even hundreds of times without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, then stronger safeguards clearly need to exist.
The manufacturers and cities implementing this technology argue for increased safety and law enforcement efficiency, but at what cost? There is a major difference between using a camera to locate a stolen vehicle and creating a system capable of building a history of where ordinary people travel. A person shouldn’t have to be suspected of a crime for their movements to be recorded, stored, and potentially searched.
We must act now to protect our privacy and address this growing problem. Let’s urge our local leaders to stop the unchecked expansion of Flock and similar surveillance systems and demand transparency and accountability in any surveillance initiatives. Privacy cannot become a relic of the past; it needs to be a preserved right for all of us to enjoy now and in the future.
What We're Asking For:
No ALPR deployment without a public vote or council hearing with real notice, not a line item buried in a budget meeting.
Full transparency on which vendor, how much data is collected, how long it's retained, and who else it's shared with, including other police departments, state agencies, and federal agencies.
An independent audit of any existing or proposed system's privacy and security practices before renewal.
A hard retention limit and a ban on data-sharing with agencies outside Houston jurisdiction absent a warrant.
Public reporting, at minimum annually, on how the system has actually been used, not just how it's been marketed.
Houston residents deserve a real conversation about what kind of town we want to live in, one where trust in our neighbors and our police doesn't depend on a permanent camera record of everywhere we've driven.
Join me in fighting back against the encroachment on our freedoms. Sign this petition to demand the removal of Flock and similar surveillance cameras from our neighborhoods. Let’s stand together to protect our privacy rights and reinforce the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Together, we can make our voices heard and reclaim our right to live, work, and travel through our own communities without being constantly tracked.
The Ask:
We call on the City of Houston to reject the installation and use of automated license plate reader (ALPR) camera networks (including systems from Flock Safety and similar vendors) within city limits, and to require full public disclosure, an independent privacy audit, and community approval before any such system is deployed or renewed.
Every day, our fundamental right to privacy is being eroded by the pervasive surveillance of AI-driven technologies. In Houston and across Harris County, Flock and similar surveillance cameras have quietly been installed, monitoring our movements without our consent. This is not just a technological advancement—it is an invasion of our personal space and raises serious concerns about our Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment was designed to safeguard us from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. However, with these surveillance cameras, our movements can be tracked without us knowing, and the data collected can be accessed without a warrant. In Houston, a Houston Chronicle investigation found nearly 470,000 Flock searches in the records it examined, with roughly two-thirds using vague search reasons such as “investigation” or “suspect.” This raises a serious question: how can we trust a system with this much information about us when officers aren’t always required to clearly explain why they are searching it?
We have already seen examples of what can happen when this technology is abused. In Fort Bend County, a sheriff’s lieutenant admitted to using Flock to search one license plate 41 times and another 148 times for reasons unrelated to official law-enforcement work. In Pasadena, a police sergeant was accused of using Flock to track and stalk a female officer and resigned while under investigation. In Baytown, a police officer was accused of misusing Flock, resulting in both an internal and criminal investigation. And now, three Harris County Sheriff’s deputies have had their Flock access suspended while the department investigates possible misuse. These are not hypothetical concerns happening somewhere across the country—they are happening right here in the Houston area.
And it doesn't stop at license plates. These systems are marketed as "plate readers," but the cameras capture far more than plates, vehicle make, model, and color, distinguishing features like bumper stickers and dents, and in many deployments, the people themselves: faces, clothing, even tattoos. Some systems log pets and other animals in frame. This is full-scene surveillance sold under a narrower name.
These systems are also not exclusively for vehicle traffic. These cameras are increasingly deployed at the entrances to parks, greenways, and other recreation areas... places residents go to walk, bike, and let their kids play, not places anyone expects to be logged into a searchable database. Some systems go further still, capturing the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals of nearby devices, meaning your phone, smartwatch, or car's own wireless systems can be fingerprinted and tracked even when your plate isn't the target.
This should worry parents most of all. Many Houston families already go out of their way to protect their kids' privacy, keeping photos off social media, being careful about tagging locations, teaching kids not to share where they'll be and when. That instinct is exactly right, and these cameras undercut it entirely. A camera at the park entrance doesn't ask a parent's permission before logging their child's face, their car, and the time they showed up to the same playground every Tuesday after school. A camera near a school zone or youth sports field builds the same kind of pattern, who picks up which kid, when, how often, that families spend real effort trying not to put online. The privacy protections parents choose for their kids shouldn't be quietly overridden by a government camera they never agreed to.
Imagine stepping out your front door, driving to work, or simply enjoying your community, yet being constantly observed by unblinking eyes. These cameras can capture images of vehicles not only on public streets but also at places such as parking lots, neighborhood entrances, and other private or semi-private locations. Flock cameras have been documented at locations around Houston including the Galleria and neighborhood entrances, while community researchers have identified unusual placements in other parts of Texas, including a report of multiple Flock cameras pointed toward a skate park in Amarillo. Even if every camera has a legitimate purpose, the public deserves to know exactly where these cameras are, what they are pointed at, and why they are there.
The proliferation of such technology poses a significant threat, potentially leading to abuses of power and unwarranted intrusion into our private lives. We have already seen this potential become reality. The Fort Bend case alone shows how information collected for law enforcement can be accessed for personal reasons. If an officer can search the movements of a person’s vehicle dozens or even hundreds of times without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, then stronger safeguards clearly need to exist.
The manufacturers and cities implementing this technology argue for increased safety and law enforcement efficiency, but at what cost? There is a major difference between using a camera to locate a stolen vehicle and creating a system capable of building a history of where ordinary people travel. A person shouldn’t have to be suspected of a crime for their movements to be recorded, stored, and potentially searched.
We must act now to protect our privacy and address this growing problem. Let’s urge our local leaders to stop the unchecked expansion of Flock and similar surveillance systems and demand transparency and accountability in any surveillance initiatives. Privacy cannot become a relic of the past; it needs to be a preserved right for all of us to enjoy now and in the future.
What We're Asking For:
No ALPR deployment without a public vote or council hearing with real notice, not a line item buried in a budget meeting.
Full transparency on which vendor, how much data is collected, how long it's retained, and who else it's shared with, including other police departments, state agencies, and federal agencies.
An independent audit of any existing or proposed system's privacy and security practices before renewal.
A hard retention limit and a ban on data-sharing with agencies outside Auburn's jurisdiction absent a warrant.
Public reporting, at minimum annually, on how the system has actually been used, not just how it's been marketed.
Auburn residents deserve a real conversation about what kind of town we want to live in, one where trust in our neighbors and our police Anacn't danand an a narmanent camara record of everywhere we’ve driven.
Join me in fighting back against the encroachment on our freedoms. Sign this petition to demand the removal of Flock and similar surveillance cameras from our neighborhoods. Let’s stand together to protect our privacy rights and reinforce the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Together, we can make our voices heard and reclaim our right to live, work, and travel through our own communities without being constantly tracked.
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on August 18, 2026