The article is very one sided, implying without evidence that Flock is for recreational tracking of individuals. With San Francisco SFPD’s ALPR cameras at least, this would be an abuse of the cameras according to the policy linked from https://transparency.flocksafety.com/san-francisco-ca-pd. Here are the Authorized purposes:

Locate stolen, wanted, and or other vehicles that are the subject of investigation

To apprehend wanted persons subject to arrest warrants or who are otherwise lawfully sought by law enforcement.

To locate victims, witnesses, suspects, missing children, adults, and/or elderly individuals, including in response to Amber Alerts and Silver Alerts and others associated with a law enforcement investigation.

To assist with criminal investigations initiated by local, state and regional public safety departments by identifying vehicles associated with targets of criminal investigations.

Counter-terrorism: Identify potential threats to critical infrastructure sites.

For other law enforcement purposes as authorized by law: Investigations of major crimes.

Which of these uses do people not like? Or which other policies are people concerned with in other jurisdictions?

Not on the list, but documented:

* Live monitoring of teenagers in gyms for sales purposes,

* Multiple counts of stalking by LEOs,

* Instances of unsecured access,

* Multiple erroneous plate matching directly leading to "swatting" of women and children on day to day shopping trips.

The unwarranted mass surveillance and dragnet part. We have a thing called the fourth Constitutional amendment here in the United States. We also have the first amendment, which the Supreme Court has ruled in the past must not be subject to a "chilling effect".

The Flock camera system, and any dragnet surveillance system, is a direct chilling effect to the rights to freedom of speech, freedom from religious persecution and freedom of assembly.

The inalienable aspect of these rights means that literally no example or rationalization you can provide would justify impacting those rights for even a single individual or group.

161 people in LA were stopped for bad data using flock cameras. The contract with them is canceled but the damn things are still up giving data to DHS probably.