Thank you to everyone who wrote in. We received a flood of passionate response from the community, too many to include but I’m fitting in as many comments as I can.
Here’s what you had to say:
“I do not support flock cameras. Next thing you know they will be in our own backyard literally. This should be illegal. It is a privacy issue! Stronger regulations around this and the people’s say so in their city, township, district, county!” — Faith, Ypsilanti
“How can we be sure these cameras are not surveillance equipment for the government along with these data centers that don’t tell us what the hell they are doing period?!?!?! I for one think it’s way to far for government reach into our private lives. Between the cameras and the data centers it’s to much for Michigan and its residents!!!” — Linda, Kalamazoo
“I guess I don’t care about the cameras. We have the potential for cameras everywhere this day and age so why get upset now. If you aren’t going anything wrong, why do you care!!! Maybe some people will drive more responsibly or think twice about breaking the law! We can’t seem to police ourselves so someone needs to do it!” — Janis, Ionia
“I do not support the use of flock cameras and I believe the founding fathers would be horrified at the thought.” — Deborah, Berrien Springs
“No level of government has shown that they will reliably protect information about my private activity. No, I do not support the use of surveillance systems and existing regulation, and I believe they reduce my personal security. If finding missing persons is a problem (how many?) does evidence support that the cameras are the best solution?” — Bob, Royal Oak
“Yes, I support Flock cameras. They have helped catch criminals in our township. Just because municipalities stop using them, that doesn’t stop private use. How many people have Ring or other security cameras that show the street in front of their homes? Next time you’re in Walmart look at all the cameras hanging from the ceiling. Are we going to outlaw all security cameras?” — Mike, Pinckney
“Yes I support them, I feel anything that keeps us safer is necessary.” — Dona, Rochester Hills
“I absolutely do NOT support the use of Flock or Axom or Coroam of any other “license plate” reading cameras. I do not trust the companies behind the technology and I do not trust the humans using the technology.” — James, Wixom
“I oppose the use of automatic license scanning. It raises questions of privacy & seemingly has no restrictions on usage or storage & is a further invasion of privacy. It’s use by law enforcement as a means of identifying missing persons seems very weak & raises questions about what other uses may come into play.” — Kathy, Lansing
“I only approve of Flock cameras for limited law enforcement use. The data collected must be kept private with limited access- only looking for specific plates for specific reasons. It cannot be used to assess traffic volumes or for general monitoring of people or vehicles. I do not want the government as a whole to have any access; except by court order for a specific case. It should be locally controlled. My privacy should be respected! Security must be extremely high to prevent hacking and misuse of data.” — Karen, Claybanks Township
“Absolutely NOT. The missing person thing is BS, they ask on local news for help from the public to help plus the police, it’s part of their job description to be on the lookout. Check your own surveillance camera on your doorbell which Flock will be using also without your permission if they haven’t started already. I don’t trust even limiting the distribution of the gathered information those who want it will find a way to get it.” — Ted, Oscoda
“I just find it intrusive. Now with another device scanning Bluetooth signals, is just another step in the government control of our lives. Look how this is used in China to dominate and harass an ethnic minority. It’s not fair for the people. I do believe it will ultimately be used to track people. This administration is especially scary as they are fascist. But truly any administration could do this. This does not benefit the people. It benefits the ones that want control.” — Greg, Jenison
“We already have them. And I think it is wrong on all levels. There is no reason for them.” — George, Middleville
“No, I don’t think it’s a good idea or cost efficient.” — Tonny, Twining
“Many other counties rely heavily on cctv…flock cams are no different than cameras set on houses and in door bells. If you aren’t breaking the law then don’t worry. My daughter had someone run a light and cause $4900 to car. The police couldn’t be bothered to look at camera for a serious hit and run accident. If the government can be made to not use the cameras, then the private sector won’t be Far behind being told to get rid of theirs. When I lived in Clinton twp. Mich…the neighbors put a revolving camera to look over 3 neighbor’s fences…police could not make them take it down. Living in a small town…Kimball Mich now. We have 3 flock cams by the express way. Its close to border and I think its a good idea for public view. But not so much for snooping into your neighbors yards.” — Priscella, Kimball
