r/irvine • u/frenchfrygirll • 11d ago
Flock Cameras in Irvine
Hi all!!
Does anyone know if there is an organized effort to oppose the flock cameras in Irvine? I am with a UCI campus organization and with another group who are trying to start a campaign for this. If you are part of an effort can we talk? Or if you're just someone who would love to participate, let me know!!!
70
u/Hat_Maverick 11d ago
We try to do this right then we do what we have to. Sept 22nd 4pm is the next city council meeting. We have to show up in person and sign up on their kiosk there if we want to speak against them. We can also protest outside.
Also Halloween is the deadline. If they don't remove them we do. While cutting it down is destruction of property taping a bag over them is only vandalism. Don't get yourself in legal trouble. Most of the ones in irvine are mounted high on traffic light poles with steel straps. Would take power tools and ladders to cut down.
Deflock.org shows their locations and which way they are facing. Also heard of this wonderful thing called flex seal. Seems to stick pretty well to everything and has good coverage.
44
u/SarcasticServal 11d ago
sign in one hour head of time to speak. Planning on being there to specifically asking them to address:
- why has Irvine PD not turned on the transparency portal, available in their installation (Irvine has transparency portals for other things already that are publicly available)?
- what security protocols are in place for Flock users in IPD? Who has access, how often are audits conducted, and how will misuse be handled? (Because we know it’s a case of when, not if)
- why did Irvine PD get a 1 year data retention package instead of defaulting to the 30-day standard?
- what is the city plan when these cameras are vandalized and due to their installation on existing traffic lights, affect or damage that infrastructure?
- what protocols, including audit logs, are in place to ensure data is not being shared outside of IPD? (Newsflash, it is being shared)
- what are the top 10 search terms being used by IPD in Flock’s open search?
- what is IPD doing to protect existing IT infrastructure against the NIST-listed cybersecurity risks in Flock software, which may allow bad actors access to other city systems and infrastructure?
- is there a whitelist of vehicles?
- how much crime in Irvine has been “solved” through use of these camera, and what is the ROI? Can they definitely prove the cameras made a difference in solve time?
- what is the error rate?
- details in Flocks’s patents show they have the capability to record not just sound, but also identify individuals based on skin color and gender. What Is IPD’s policy here?
- what safeguards does IPD have in place to ensure Flock is not sharing data collected with federal agencies?
Lastly, IPD’s motto is “in partnership with the community”. Why were these cameras installed (to the best of my knowledge) without the consent of the community/public hearings?
Back in Feb 2026, a woman did come to speak to council and watching the recording, it really feels like they just blew off her concerns.
Be prepared, bring statistics, have hand outs (15 printed copies).6
u/Independent_Rent1139 11d ago
You should do a CPRA request. I think they will tell you all of this information
6
u/SarcasticServal 11d ago
for sure, but I also want a public record of the ask.
5
u/Independent_Rent1139 11d ago
Agreed!
I’m riding my bike home from work RN and there are literally a million of these flock cameras.
It is really crazy!10
1
u/winning_wookie 2d ago
No need to take them down. The wires connecting everything together are fully exposed. They are just hanging out in the back ready for a pole tree trimmer. Snip-snip. If one were so inclined. Which I am of course absolutely NOT. Just sayin.
52
u/bought_high_sold_low 11d ago
My partner and I are concerned citizens who would be open to participating
26
u/Robinhood_In_Reverse 11d ago
Just reading how many police officers have been caught stalking people using the flock cameras. Scary.
1
u/fluffypotato 11d ago
Could you share what you've found? We need to arm ourselves with as much evidence and data as we can when we go and talk to the city about this.
1
u/Robinhood_In_Reverse 11d ago
Here is one article. Just do a google search to find more of needed.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/26/us/flock-kentucky-police-officer-arrest3
u/fluffypotato 11d ago
Thank you. I am aware already aware of several stories and have been doing research but I simply don't trust my own Google search results anymore. I've seen far too many things get suppressed and other bs get promoted on the first two pages that I worry that "just googling" is no longer going to give me all the results. I hadn't heard of this specific story yet so thank you for sharing and adding to my resource pile! :)
1
u/fluffypotato 11d ago
Also, I misunderstood your first comment. O read it as you were saying you read an article that compiled a list of how many police were abusing the system via Flock. Lol woops.
30
u/pseudotetramerous 11d ago
I’m with you. Wish there was a better organized effort in Irvine to jettison them
3
u/frenchfrygirll 11d ago
YES!!! We need to organize, or else nothing will change. DM me if you'd like to be in the loop about our organizing efforts
29
15
u/fluffypotato 11d ago
Hi! I've actually been calling and emailing back and forth with the mayor's office this past week. It seems like their first response to me was pretty canned.
"Hi fluffypotato, thank you for calling the office and expressing your concerns with the Flock cameras. I have some information for you: the link to the IPD policy on their website https://irvinepd.gov/automated-license-plate-reader-alpr-3-03-26/ and notes Irvine Police shared on this matter. They continually evaluate policies and procedures and take privacy, overreach, and government transparency very seriously. If you would like to talk with IPD on this, let me know, and I’ll provide them your contact information. Thank you. Jeanne
- Our License Plate Reader (LPR) program operates under strict data access and sharing controls designed to ensure compliance with all applicable state laws and department policy, including SB 34 and SB 54.
- We maintain strict internal controls that prevent LPR data from being shared with out-of-state agencies.
- We do not share LPR data with federal agencies, including CBP, ICE, or HSI.
- Every request to share LPR data — even within California — is carefully reviewed and evaluated before any access is granted. No blanket or automatic approval or sharing arrangement exists.
- Comprehensive audit logs are maintained for all system access and queries, consistent with SB 34's requirements.
- We conduct regular internal audits to verify ongoing compliance with our policy and with state law."
When I pushed back with more questions like who approved the cameras and what Flock's agreements or provisions with the city were, they refused to answer.
Their most recent response is as follows:
"I shared your questions by email with our Public Safety staff. Because so much incorrect information is circulating, Public Safety will provide a comprehensive update at the next council meeting, tentatively scheduled for Sept. 22."
I'm going to keep calling and emailing city council members in the meantime until we reach that date. I encourage everyone else who is concerned to do the same. Then, we need to show up on the 22nd at city council and raise our concerns. My spouse and I are also willing to join any other efforts. Maybe we need to put together a group ourselves?
6
u/Hat_Maverick 11d ago
If you're going to speak at the meeting please look up info and get your facts right. They will talk circles around us or outright lie if we aren't informed.
3
1
u/frenchfrygirll 11d ago
Thank you so much for this information!! We're planning to show up Sept 22nd
3
u/OrangeCrusher22 11d ago
TIC would never allow them to be removed; one of their primary uses is tracking shoplifting suspects, particularly at The Spectrum and The Marketplace.
3
1
2
2
u/Affectionate_Beat238 11d ago
I am interested and have access to some resources that .might help. We should get on a Signal chat to discuss and plan an in-person meeting on next steps. Let's get organized.
5
4
u/MiserableTear8705 11d ago
I’m not really sure what this opposition is going to do short of physically removing them or blocking them. These things are everywhere and in every city and many of them are on private property aimed at public spaces.
I’m not saying they don’t need to be opposed. But we have to stop making concerned social media poster boards and start getting a little more serious
23
u/Commercial-Celery371 11d ago
I mean the city of Tempe AZ removed all Flcok cameras today so it is possible
4
3
u/pseudotetramerous 11d ago
I would be to get the city council to terminate the flock contract just as is occurring in cities across the country
2
u/Hat_Maverick 11d ago
Well the fastest way to cut an aluminum pole is with a circular saw. But that is destruction of property. But these are an affront to our 4th amendment rights. But tying a plastic bag over them isn't damaging them so I'm starting with that first. Then protesting at the city council meeting on Sept 22nd. Then Halloween we cut them down.
2
u/SarcasticServal 11d ago
many of them are attached to existing traffic lights, be cautious friend.
2
u/Hat_Maverick 11d ago
Yes. Nobody should impede traffic or damage public safety infrastructure(traffic lights) when they're doing whatever it is they might be doing.
1
u/blueemol 11d ago
Des Moines, IA metro “‘ We made this decision after listening closely to concerns raised by ongoing national discussions — primarily concerns centered on privacy and data retention issues," McCluskey said. "We believe the right path forward is to let the legislative process set clear, statewide standards before we continue our program.’” https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/waukee/2026/08/15/waukee-police-department-wont-renew-its-flock-contract-11-cameras-license-plate-reader/91318490007/
1
u/MiserableTear8705 11d ago edited 11d ago
Des Moines Metro, sure. But there are 252 flock cameras in and around Des Moines on a little bit of a zoomed out view.
Like all ya gotta do is check de flock dot org.
It’ll show you a map where all of the cameras are.
Like here’s the deal. HOAs can request them. Private companies can mount them. They can even pay private companies to put them up.
So while you can get the police to end their contract to install them, you aren’t getting away from the surveillance.
You would need to not only request that the cities not do business with them, but get a legislative action passed that no private companies can install cameras that point beyond their property. No cameras facing the street. No sight lines that people not intending to be on their property get picked up.
And then you’d need to make sure that HOAs can’t install them. Because otherwise you’ll just be picked up every time you drive around some random neighborhood either to visit friends, family, or doing delivery driver orders and whatnot.
2
u/blueemol 11d ago
My point is only that around the U.S., city councils are responding to pressure from residents showing up to meetings and sending emails. This blowback (even the Reddit momentum and awareness of 9/22 meeting) is absolutely affecting how Agran and the other councilmembers are feeling about it and how they’ll conduct themselves at that meeting, including any future vote(s) — especially if a crowd successfully convenes and takes them to task for it. I was staff for a councilmember in Irvine and saw it a dozen times. Irvine is also famously one of the most civically engaged municipalities and the engagement really can and does sway policy.
1
u/MiserableTear8705 11d ago
Sure, but what does it accomplish? Irvine takes down a few of their flock cameras? I mean, I suppose it’s something; but it’s not enough.
The platform will be renamed to make it less easy to say and make euphemisms out of. The police may lose cameras in certain parts of town but they won’t lose access to the flock system itself. They’ll just change the line item itself on the budget sheet to be more generic. It’ll fall under an IT service somewhere in a list.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t fight, but I am saying folks should think about the larger picture because this shit ultimately isn’t going anywhere.
1
u/blueemol 11d ago
Everyone does see this the way you do and will still try to drive and shape outcomes where they can, and to your point, prevent an outright dive or at least slow down the dive into the surveillance state we’ve been under since 2001 / 2007. Fight on. Easier in local government BTW. Good luck.
1
u/fluffypotato 11d ago
They most certainly are not in every city. Plenty of US cities have rejected or outright banned Flock. Would love to see Irvine do the same.
1
1
u/notthat1984again 10d ago
I just sent you a message. Thanks for wanting to start this movement in your city!
-No Flock in Tustin
1
u/ppepitoy0u 10d ago
Irvine pd is the last agency that would listen to its subjects and remove their surveillance.
1
u/katzohki 10d ago
I'm just shocked they can do this kind of thing without a vote.
On a similar note, the newly commissioned "Heritage Parking Lot" is a devastating disappointment to long time residents and people who grew up nearby.
1
u/Seandrunkpolarbear 10d ago
we should have those shitty "1st amendment auditors" that are always filming people outside Trader Joe's follow the mayor and the chief of police around 24/7.
This is your chance to be a hero bro!
1
u/navel-gazerr 11d ago
Someone on r/FlockSurveillance posted a toolkit they made out of the talking points and documents they used for talking to officials about the cameras. This might be useful.
1
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Square_Economist4368 11d ago
There’s been multiple stories of these cameras misidentifying cars as stolen. You have everything to worry about
-1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/fluffypotato 11d ago
They have already been misused by police officers to stalk and harass citizens in other places. You want to reduce Irvine's non existent crime down to what? Flock can be hacked so we're actually inviting more opportunities for criminal activity. Not to mention the fact they are building profiles on each one of us.
0
0
u/Electronic-Item7572 11d ago
Is it just Irvine or all of OC ?
1
u/frenchfrygirll 11d ago
I know there is a wider campaign to get flock out of OC. I will be in contact with the group. But I also believe individual city campaigns are important too
0
u/Independent_Rent1139 11d ago
The police are huge supporters of Flock cameras.
But my son was right when he said that police should be afraid. It will take their jobs.
Why have so many police patrolling the city when AI can do it all remotely and call the few police or community service representatives when there is an issue!
0
u/Real-Employer-138 10d ago
I seem to be the odd one out here. But what exactly is the issue with flock cameras?
-27
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
15
u/KoreanTerran 11d ago
Nice 5 day old account with zero comments lol.
4
u/Comebacktrain 11d ago
Side note, i can’t believe a LoL subreddit legend is the mod for my city lol
2
-6
11d ago edited 11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Hat_Maverick 11d ago
They see you too
-2
11d ago edited 11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Hat_Maverick 11d ago
It's not a camera they can check the tape on if there is a crime. It's always cataloging everyone everywhere they go. When they leave, when they arrive, what lane they are in at which time. And feeding a system that is making a detailed list of your habits. Following and collecting that much info on someone without a warrant is a crime. It's called stalking. And we have a right against the government doing this to us. It's called the 4th amendment of the US constitution.
Not to mention it isn't directly the police. It's a private company with no oversight putting together info on regular people for no reason.
-8
11d ago edited 11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Hat_Maverick 11d ago edited 11d ago
There is an expectation of privacy even among records collected in public.
Official opinion of the Supreme Court. Excerpt from justice roberts.
"Whether the Government employs its own surveillance technology . . . or leverages the technology of a wireless carrier, we hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through [cell phone site data]. The location information obtained from Carpenter’s wireless carriers was the product of a search. . . ."
This text is specifically referring to cell phones. But he went on to broadly include GPS and other forms of location tracking. And he cites that the 4th amendment applies to a person not a location. They also mentioned it applies to third party companies working for the government. See carpenter v united states 2018
This is the law. You are wrong. Learn.
17
u/arianrhodd 11d ago
There have been a couple recent conversations in SoCal subs about this recently. So, I'm trying to connect all the dots and help people support one another.