York County Sheriff says ordinary citizens aren't affected by Flock cameras. We sent him an open letter.

York County Sheriff says ordinary citizens aren't affected by Flock cameras. We sent him an open letter.

This was originally posted by Deflock York County SC on Facebook. I thought it was worth sharing here because the debate over automated license plate readers isn't just happening nationally — it's happening right here in York County.

Original Facebook post:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BrijmKwoN/

Petition calling for the removal of Flock cameras from York County:

https://c.org/TPHtHnTSvX

---

AN OPEN LETTER TO SHERIFF TONY BREEDEN

Deflock York County is publicly submitting our petition calling for the removal of Flock Safety automated license plate readers from York County.

We have listened to Sheriff Breeden's public defense of these cameras.

He has said ordinary citizens are not affected. He has pointed out that nobody is sitting behind a computer watching people drive around. He has also cited Flock's involvement in more than 250 cases as evidence that the system is working.

Respectfully, none of those points resolve the concerns residents are raising.

The issue has never been whether someone is sitting in a room watching a live camera feed.

They don't have to.

Flock automatically photographs passing vehicles, records identifying vehicle information along with a time and location, stores that information, and allows authorized users to search it later.

The system cannot determine whether someone is a criminal before collecting their information.

It collects first.

That includes the overwhelming majority of people driving to work, taking their children to school, visiting family, going to church, seeing a doctor, shopping for groceries, or simply traveling through York County while suspected of absolutely nothing.

That is why this discussion matters.

What about false alerts?

When residents are told that ordinary citizens are not affected, we also have to acknowledge what is happening right here in York County.

York County is currently facing a pending lawsuit involving an alleged incorrect Flock alert.

According to the lawsuit, a Flock camera incorrectly read a character on a man's license plate and associated his vehicle with a stolen vehicle. Deputies subsequently detained him at gunpoint before determining his BMW was not stolen.

The Sheriff's Office has pointed to a tinted license plate cover as a factor in the incorrect read.

The lawsuit is still pending. No court has determined liability, and we are not pretending otherwise.

But the underlying issue cannot simply be brushed aside.

An ordinary citizen says he was detained at gunpoint following an incorrect Flock alert.

So when the public is told that ordinary citizens aren't affected by this technology, respectfully, that deserves some serious scrutiny.

This is exactly why safeguards matter.

This is exactly why verification matters.

This is exactly why auditing matters.

And this is exactly why "trust us" cannot be the standard.

About those "250+ cases"

Sheriff Breeden has said Flock has helped with more than 250 cases.

Then show York County what that means.

* Did Flock solve 250 cases?

* Did it merely provide a lead in 250 cases?

* How many resulted in arrests?

* How many resulted in convictions?

* How many alerts were incorrect?

* How many searches produced nothing?

* How many agencies can search York County's data?

* How many out-of-county or out-of-state agencies have accessed it?

* How many searches have been audited?

* How many policy violations have been identified?

* How many innocent motorists have been stopped because of incorrect information?

If this program is as effective, narrowly used, and carefully controlled as we're being told, those numbers should strengthen the Sheriff's argument.

Release them. Let the public see the evidence.

This isn't about being anti-police.

We aren't asking deputies to stop investigating crimes.

We aren't asking law enforcement to ignore stolen vehicles, wanted suspects, missing children, or dangerous people.

We're asking a much more fundamental question:

«How much information should government routinely collect about people who are suspected of nothing simply because that information might become useful later?»

There has to be a line.

Technology does not become reasonable simply because it is useful.

Government surveillance does not become harmless simply because most people have nothing to hide.

And constitutional rights do not disappear because a private company developed a more efficient way to collect information.

So we're asking Sheriff Breeden directly:

Will you reconsider York County's use of Flock cameras?

Will you support removing them?

And if the answer is no:

Will you sit down with Deflock York County and explain your position directly?

No gotcha questions.

No shouting match.

No political circus.

Sit down with us.

Bring the facts. Bring the numbers.

Explain the safeguards.

Explain the sharing.

Explain the searches.

Explain the false alerts.

Explain what "250+ cases" actually means.

And allow us to explain why so many residents believe this technology crosses a line that should concern every American, regardless of political party.

We're willing to listen.

But we expect our elected Sheriff to be willing to listen too.

Public safety matters.

So does liberty.

So does privacy.

So does accountability.

We should not have to sacrifice one to protect the other.

The petition is public. The questions are public. And the invitation to meet remains open.

The people of York County deserve an answer.

— Deflock York County

reddit.com
u/Zerkzie — 1 day ago
▲ 493 r/DeFlock+3 crossposts

Petition to Remove Flock Safety Cameras from York County, SC

I started a Change.org petition calling for the complete removal of Flock Safety license plate reader cameras from York County.

My concern goes beyond simply having cameras on public roads. These systems create searchable records of where vehicles are seen, when they were seen, and can allow that information to be accessed and shared across agencies.

We’ve also seen why this deserves scrutiny locally. A York County resident recently sued after an incorrect Flock hit allegedly resulted in him being stopped at gunpoint before deputies determined his vehicle was not stolen. There have also been recent cases elsewhere involving law-enforcement employees accused of improperly using Flock systems for personal purposes.

For me, better policies and audits don’t solve the underlying issue: the information is still being collected in the first place.

I support law enforcement having effective tools to investigate crimes, but I don’t believe that requires building a network that routinely records the movements of thousands of people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong.

The petition calls for York County and local municipalities to:

  • Stop using Flock Safety ALPR cameras
  • Remove existing government-operated Flock cameras
  • Stop purchasing or deploying additional cameras
  • End participation in Flock data-sharing networks
  • Terminate or decline to renew Flock contracts
  • Release contracts, costs, policies, audit information, and data-sharing agreements to the public

If you’re interested, please read the petition and decide for yourself:

https://c.org/TPHtHnTSvX

Public safety matters. Privacy and civil liberties matter too. York County can have both without a countywide Flock surveillance network.

u/Zerkzie — 8 days ago

Cars & Coffee Rock Hill

🚗☕ Cars & Coffee Rock Hill is back! ☕🚗

Join us Saturday, August 22nd from 9–11 AM at Knowledge Perk Coffee Company in downtown Rock Hill!

📍 130 W. White St., Rock Hill, SC

Bring out your car, truck, motorcycle, classic, import, muscle car, exotic—or whatever you’re proud to drive. Grab some coffee, meet fellow enthusiasts, and enjoy a morning surrounded by great vehicles and even better people.

Please be respectful of the property and surrounding area—no burnouts, excessive revving, or reckless driving.

Tag your friends and share the post. We’ll see you there!

www.rockhillcnc.com

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/share/1BfG8CbYFB/

Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1HZjpacZiu/

u/Zerkzie — 19 days ago

Deflock York County SC found York County approved $51,000 for 8 additional Flock cameras

Saw this posted by Deflock York County SC on Facebook.

According to York County Council records, the county approved about $51,000 for eight additional Flock cameras in March 2023.

The records do not clearly explain where the money came from, how many cameras were already operating, or what the total yearly cost is.

Sharing the screenshot because York County residents deserve to know how these cameras are being funded and how much the program is costing taxpayers.

Link to the facebook post:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ETh1TEwpg/

https://preview.redd.it/yu0w3vfm9ffh1.png?width=671&format=png&auto=webp&s=bef88c75d23b9ced3851a7bc0e7ba97ad2ac6d67

reddit.com
u/Zerkzie — 26 days ago

Rock Hill has 26 Flock cameras — here’s what the documents show so far

Sharing this because there hasn’t been much public discussion about the City of Rock Hill’s automated license-plate-reader program.

The Deflock York County SC page recently posted information gathered from correspondence with Rock Hill Police Chief Chris Watts, along with the City’s Flock contract and current police policy.

Here are the biggest findings:

Rock Hill currently operates 26 Flock cameras, but the contract provided only accounts for the original 16 cameras. That agreement listed a recurring annual cost of $40,000, plus a one-time implementation fee.

Using the original $2,500-per-camera price, 26 cameras could cost approximately $65,000 per year, although the exact amount cannot be confirmed until the City releases the later contracts, invoices and amendments covering the additional ten cameras.

The policy confirms that:

Every passing license plate is photographed, not only vehicles suspected of crimes.

Records can be searched by date, time, camera location and vehicle characteristics.

Images are normally retained for 30 days, but relevant

images can be downloaded and stored separately as evidence.

Audits are handled internally and reported to the police chief; the policy does not require independent audits or public release of the findings.

The current policy did not take effect until May 4, 2026, even though the program began in 2021. It is unclear what written policy governed the system during the earlier years.

The contract also says Flock does not guarantee that its service or results will be error-free and contains significant limitations on the company’s liability.

Formal FOIA requests were submitted to both Rock Hill and York County on July 21 seeking current costs, contracts, approvals, audits, sharing information and earlier policies.

Regardless of where you stand on these cameras, residents should know exactly what is being collected, who can access it, how much it costs and what safeguards exist.

Has anyone here heard Rock Hill City Council publicly discuss or vote on expanding the system from 16 to 26 cameras?

You can keep updated on the deflock York County SC Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/share/1CW9gLEPvk/

reddit.com
u/Zerkzie — 28 days ago

Anyone else catch Sheriff Breeden’s post defending Flock cameras?

The video focused heavily on cases where Flock cameras helped law enforcement, but York County residents deserve the full picture—not just the success stories.

How many cameras are currently operating?

What do they cost taxpayers?

How long is plate, vehicle, time, and location data retained?

Which outside agencies can search it?

How many false alerts, mistaken stops, complaints, or

improper searches have occurred?

When does the contract expire?

These questions matter because a pending York County lawsuit alleges that a Flock camera misread a resident’s plate, falsely identified his vehicle as stolen, and contributed to him being detained at gunpoint. The allegations have not yet been decided in court, but the incident warrants public scrutiny.

Nobody is denying that the cameras can help solve crimes. The question is whether those benefits justify creating a searchable record of innocent residents’ vehicle movements without stronger transparency, independent oversight, and public approval.

Before York County renews or expands this system, the Sheriff’s Office and County Council should release the contract, policies, costs, retention rules, sharing arrangements, audit results, and complete local performance data.

“We use it responsibly” is a claim. Public records and independent oversight are proof.

What are everyone’s thoughts?

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1aSmVGNWYu/

reddit.com
u/Zerkzie — 30 days ago

Rock Hill Cars and coffee July 25th.

Cars & Coffee Rock Hill – July 25th

Cars & Coffee Rock Hill is back on Saturday, July 25th from 9:00–11:00 AM at Knowledge Perk Coffee Company, located at 130 W. White Street in downtown Rock Hill.

Bring out your car, grab some coffee, and hang out with other local automotive enthusiasts. Classics, muscle cars, imports, trucks, exotics, motorcycles, daily drivers, and project cars are all welcome.

The event is free and family-friendly. Please be respectful of the property, other guests, and the surrounding streets—no burnouts or unnecessary revving.

Hope to see some of you there!

www.rockhillcnc.com

u/Zerkzie — 1 month ago

Rock Hill residents should be asking questions about Flock cameras

Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers are becoming increasingly common, but I don’t think most Rock Hill residents have been given a meaningful opportunity to discuss the privacy implications.

These systems do more than alert police when a stolen vehicle passes by. They photograph license plates, record the time and location, store that information, and allow it to be searched later. When cameras across cities, counties, neighborhoods, businesses, and law-enforcement agencies are connected, they can create a searchable record of where ordinary people travel.

You do not have to be accused or suspected of a crime. Your vehicle can still be recorded simply because you drove through Rock Hill.

I support law enforcement having effective tools to investigate crimes. My concern is whether residents have been clearly told:

-How many cameras Rock Hill operates or accesses

-How long the data is retained

-Who is allowed to search it

-Whether every search requires a documented investigative reason

-Which outside agencies can access Rock Hill data

-Whether searches are audited

-What penalties exist for misuse

-What the program costs taxpayers

The answer cannot simply be, “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t care.” Privacy is not evidence of guilt, and government surveillance should still have limits, oversight, and public accountability.

Public safety and privacy are not mutually exclusive.

These systems could be restricted to legitimate investigations, short retention periods, strong audit requirements, and warrants for historical tracking.

Has anyone here contacted Rock Hill City Council, the city manager, or the police department about the city’s use of Flock cameras? I’d be interested in seeing any policies, contracts, retention rules, or responses residents have received.

u/Zerkzie — 1 month ago

South Carolina needs to have a serious conversation about Flock cameras

Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers are spreading across South Carolina, but there has been very little public discussion about the privacy implications.

These systems do more than alert police when a stolen vehicle passes by. They photograph license plates, record the time and location, store that information, and allow it to be searched later. When cameras operated by cities, counties, neighborhoods, businesses, and law-enforcement agencies are connected, they can create a detailed record of where ordinary people travel.

You do not have to be suspected of a crime. Your vehicle can still be photographed and entered into a searchable database simply because you drove on a public road.

My concern is not that law enforcement should never use technology.

It is that South Carolina appears to have allowed a large surveillance network to grow without strong statewide rules governing:

-How long innocent drivers’ data may be stored

-What justification is required before someone searches it

-Which agencies and private organizations may access it

-Whether searches are independently audited

-What penalties exist for misuse

-Whether historical tracking should require a warrant

-Whether the public can see contracts, costs, policies, and sharing agreements

The standard should not be, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” Privacy is not evidence of guilt. The government should not build a searchable history of everyone’s movements just in case that information becomes useful later.

Public safety and privacy are not mutually exclusive. These systems could be limited to legitimate investigations, short retention periods, strict audits, and clear legal safeguards.

Has anyone here asked their local police department, sheriff’s office, city, or county how many Flock cameras they use, how long the data is stored, and who can search it?

u/Zerkzie — 1 month ago

Barton shifter added.

If you don't have a manual transmission.... You bought the wrong car.

u/Zerkzie — 1 month ago

Little b5 blue g2 caliper paint installed today.

Finished this up today and I can never say enough good things about g2 caliper paint. 😄 The gloss black high temp brembo decals are on order as well.

u/Zerkzie — 3 months ago

And couldn't find just the replacement lid anywhere and called the dealer and everything searched for used ones nothing! So... Next best thing JLT intake. 🤷‍♂️

u/Zerkzie — 4 months ago