The now infamous Flock cameras have, like data centers, united Americans in a loathing that crosses the political spectrum. But there are those who defend Flock, presumably with some not even being paid to express this view. As those familiar with my writings would guess, I’m consistently opposed to the surveillance state and hence to the Flock camera system. But I am always willing to consider arguments for mass surveillance.
One stock line I have heard from Flock defenders is that they are morally okay because we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. This is partially true. In the broadest sense, the nature of public spaces is such that we cannot expect privacy in public. But there are specific cases where privacy rights can be violated even in public spaces. Obvious examples include someone intruding into your stall in a public bathroom or getting into your backpack or purse at a public library.
While photographing someone in a public space is usually morally acceptable, there are also exceptions, like upskirt photos. Upskirt photos were once legal even when the target was a minor, as a case in Oregon showed. Fortunately, laws making this illegal have passed in the United States. In terms of how this relates to Flock cameras, it does show that even in public spaces there are still privacy rights about what can be photographed. But someone can easily argue that Flock cameras are not doing the moral equivalent of upskirt photographs as they are allegedly “just” capturing images of our vehicles. Smart glasses with cameras, such as those made by Meta, are also raising privacy concerns because, unlike with a smartphone, it can be difficult to tell when you are being filmed.
As would be guessed (as with upskirt photos) women are the main target of such secret filming. From a legal standpoint, such public filming is allowed (aside from in public bathrooms, etc.) but recording audio can run afoul of the law if private conversations are recorded. Flock cameras, as far as I know, only take photos and hence escape concerns about audio recordings. But the same moral concerns about the cameras in smart glasses arise for Flock cameras: while they are not camouflaged as innocent objects, they can be difficult to spot as you are driving. As such, you and your vehicle can be Flocked without your knowledge or consent—much like how weirdos use their smart glasses to film women in public. Defenders of Flock can argue that those using Flock are different from people using smart glasses from perverse motivations and hence the analogy fails. The obvious reply is to point out that as of this writing at least 50 “rogue” officers have been charged with misusing it and other similar systems. As would be expected, much of the misuse has been to stalk women. As such, the analogy to privacy violations using the cameras in smart glasses seems somewhat reasonable.
To be fair and balanced, the analogy will fall apart under sufficient pressure. For example, Flock is an entire network of cameras and software that takes photos of vehicles without our knowledge or consent, while a guy filming women using his smart glasses without their knowledge or consent is obviously just one guy who might upload the video. But defenders of Flock will insist that the analogy does not hold. Or perhaps they would also defend the use of smart glasses in this manner.
In addition to building arguments based on the lack of an expectation of privacy in public, defenders of Flock often draw an analogy to how Flock is like having a police officer at an intersection, checking out cars and taking notes. Or, since Flock is a private company, like having a police officer and a CEO checking out cars and taking notes at an intersection. However, as opponents point out, it is not like having a single person doing this. It is like having thousands of police (and corporate employees) watching everyone and sharing their notes with each other. This, one might argue, is equivalent to stalking.
But a Flock defender might express doubt: how could having many people watching other people be like stalking? After all, stalking involves one person directing repeated unwanted attention at a specific person that causes the target fear or distress. Going back to the police officer analogy, a cop watching an intersection, even with a CEO with them, is not stalking. They are just watching people go by and there is not that pattern of repeated unwanted attention that is essential to stalking. They could apply the same argument to the analogy involving having thousands of police (and other people) watching their own sections of streets—no one observer is repeating the pattern of unwarranted attention. It is just thousands of unrelated incidents of unwanted attention. At this point, you can see where this is going.
While a single Flock camera at one location would not be stalking, a Flock camera that followed you around all day would be. But as the Flock cameras are in a network, you are being stalked by Flock—it is a repeated pattern of unwanted attention and thus violates your moral right not to be stalked. That is, the Flock is following you all day through its many eyes, like a monster.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.