Frequently Asked Questions
Reasonable questions about Flock Safety cameras in Murphy, Texas, answered straight, with sources on the facts page.
What is DeFlock Murphy?
A resident-led, nonpartisan civic-education campaign for transparency and consent around Flock ALPR surveillance in Murphy, Texas. Not affiliated with the City of Murphy, the Murphy Police Department, Flock Group Inc., or DeFlock.me.
What does a Flock camera record?
It photographs every passing vehicle and logs the plate, make, model, color, distinguishing features, date, time, and location, uploading it all to a searchable national database. Some devices also include microphones. It scans every driver who passes, not just suspects.
Is Flock surveillance legal?
It operates under a government contract, so it is legal in that narrow sense. Whether warrantless ALPR mass surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment is disputed and being litigated in federal court. Many jurisdictions have ended their programs over exactly these legal and privacy concerns.
Can I opt out?
No. There is no individual opt-out on public roads. The only way to stop it is to end or limit the program itself.
Who can access the data?
Flock runs a national network, so local data can be searched by other participating agencies and, in documented cases, by federal authorities including immigration enforcement. Access controls and audit logs have proven weaker in practice than marketed.
Have Flock cameras had security problems?
Yes. In December 2025, researchers found at least 60 Flock cameras exposed on the open internet with no password. Flock and law-enforcement credentials have turned up for sale on dark-web markets. A 2025 Illinois Secretary of State audit found Flock gave U.S. Customs and Border Protection access to state data in violation of state law.
Isn't this anti-police?
No. This campaign is not opposed to license-plate cameras in principle. A program that requires a warrant, is adopted through competitive bidding, and is put to a public vote is a legitimate policy debate. The objection is to Flock specifically and to adopting it with no public process.
There's no privacy on a public road, so why require a warrant?
A single photograph is settled law, but an aggregated, searchable history of everywhere a car has been is different in kind. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court drew that same line for cell-phone location data. We're asking for the same standard here.
How is this different from toll cameras, Ring, or my phone?
A Ring camera belongs to you. Toll cameras bill for a road you chose to use and require legal process to access. Phone location data already requires a warrant. Flock logs every passing car into a national database, searchable with no warrant and no local case number.
Does it even work? Is it accurate?
Independent audits say not reliably. Roseville, California found 71% of its own Flock alerts were wrong. The LAPD Inspector General found roughly one in three hot-list alerts false, and LAPD let its Flock contract lapse. Powerful enough to track everyone, unreliable enough to be dangerous.
Is this a partisan issue?
No. Senators Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul have both condemned Flock's network. The federal bills restricting ALPRs (the PRIVACY Act and the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act) are Republican-sponsored, while a congressional investigation into Flock is Democratic-led. Red and blue Texas jurisdictions alike have dropped the company.
Texas banned red light cameras. Why are these legal?
Red light cameras issued fines, which gave drivers standing to sue and led to their 2019 ban. Flock cameras never ticket anyone, so almost no one has had standing to challenge them in court. A federal case over a similar network in Norfolk, Virginia is currently on appeal. Untested is not the same as vetted.
Police say it only reads plates. Is that true?
No. Flock trademarked the term Vehicle Fingerprint for the profile its machine vision builds from make, model, color, and features, and its own materials describe capturing cars even with no plate visible. This is AI-driven image analysis, in Flock's own words, not simple plate reading.
What can Murphy residents do?
Contact the city council, speak during public comment at a council meeting, file public-records requests, and vote. All lawful and peaceful. Never tamper with camera equipment.
Does Murphy even have these cameras?
Yes. The Murphy City Council first approved them on December 3, 2024, voting 5-0 to accept a state Catalytic Converter Theft grant (Senate Bill 224) to purchase Flock Safety cameras (Resolution 24-R-1115, per the city's own council minutes), and on May 5, 2026 the council voted again to seek another such grant to keep them funded. The city has not disclosed the contract, the camera count, or the annual cost.
Why does the grant matter?
The SB 224 program Murphy is pursuing funds catalytic-converter theft prevention and requires a local cash match. Flock cameras do far more than address that one crime: they log every vehicle and feed a nationwide searchable network. If the grant doesn't come through, Murphy taxpayers still face the underlying cost of the camera program either way.
What are we asking Murphy to do?
Publish the Flock contract. Hold a real public hearing on surveillance policy. Require a warrant for searches, limit data retention, and block warrantless outside access to Murphy's data. Put any future camera program to a public vote before renewal or expansion.