The implementation of surveillance cameras sold by Flock Safety has caused controversy among San Jose citizens over their use in law enforcement and concerns over surveillance.

Initially installed in San Jose in 2022, these artificial intelligence-powered cameras record passing cars and log characteristics such as vehicle model, color, license plate and more in order to provide information to law enforcement.

The cameras have led to both positive and negative uproar, bringing social media pushback, vandalism and destruction of the cameras and lawsuits against the city of San Jose.

The call to remove the cameras from the streets of San Jose is echoed by some staff and students at Branham, like computer science teacher Stephen Turner. 

“Flock Cameras are just constantly recording at all times, and that’s a very large invasion of privacy,” Turner said. 

Despite privacy concerns, the mission statement of Flock Safety says that they “build technology that helps law enforcement, businesses, schools, and communities find relevant information, respond faster, and make better-informed decisions.” 

A big part of the concern surrounding Flock cameras is how prevalent they have become, especially in San Jose’s urban areas. Senior Mekhai Pham has seen many of the cameras while driving.

“Every street I’m on, I see a Flock camera,” Pham said. “Meridian has a lot. I think they added more on Curtner and anywhere in Downtown San Jose, there’s a ton.”

Some students disagree with Flock’s claims that the cameras create “safer communities.”

“I don’t think Flock Cameras deter criminals,” Pham said. “I don’t think they really make anything safer … I think they can be a tool for public safety, but I don’t say we need them”

On the other hand, the San Jose Police Department says that the cameras help police efficiency, claiming that they were useful in the arrests of various culprits of crimes, such as in the 2025 Valley Fair Mall shooting. 

Similarly, junior Ryleigh Phillips notes that the cameras’ use in law enforcement can be beneficial.

“I definitely think that they should be used to a certain extent because it’s hard to constantly monitor every area,” Phillips said. “This way law enforcement can see footage and put pieces together and just figure out what’s going on.”

However, concerns over the U.S. turning into a “surveillance state,” a country where the government engages in widespread surveillance, have become a large part of the debate around Flock cameras.

“It’s kind of odd that the government just wants to constantly watch you,” Phillips said. “That isn’t a good direction for the U.S. to head.”

Although Phillips recognizes that the cameras can be useful in some aspects, she ultimately considers them a threat to people’s privacy,

“I understand that the cameras do need to be used sometimes in certain circumstances,” Phillips said. “I just think they don’t need to be used this heavily because if you’ve seen the maps, there’s just so many, and there’s no way there needs to be security at every single one of those spots. That’s an invasion of every person’s privacy and what they’re even doing with their life”

Additionally, there have been many instances of Flock Cameras being misused. According to CNN, law enforcement officers in Kentucky used the cameras to track their ex-partners, causing even more concern for the future of the cameras among people such as Turner.

“If people are already misusing Flock Cameras and they haven’t even been hacked yet, and they’re just being used by the people that are supposed to be using it, then I have deep concerns about someone that actually isn’t supposed to be using it getting access to it,” Turner said.

Rising controversy over the usage of Flock Cameras has prompted the start of the Deflock movement, a campaign dedicated to mapping and informing people about Flock Cameras and their potential downsides. This movement has led to people vandalizing and destroying the cameras to show resistance against their implementation, leaving many with mixed opinions.

“It’s never a good decision to just use violence to stop things,” Phillips said. “I do definitely think there should be a movement towards slowing down the use of Flock cameras, but I don’t think that’s the way to do it.”

Despite  opposition to the destruction of Flock cameras, Pham believes that their destruction is part of a greater movement to protest surveillance, albeit with a somewhat small effect.

“Removing Flock Cameras doesn’t really do much,” Pham said. “The government is just going to add more. They have deep pockets, and if they really cared about this, they would keep putting up Flock Cameras. So I feel like taking the cameras down is a form of protesting, but can’t be the only form of protest. People gotta do more than just take down the cameras.”

Despite the benefits Flock Cameras may provide, many people believe that ultimately, the cameras should not have a place in San Jose.

“I feel like we should remove Flock Cameras from San Jose,” Pham said. “I feel like they don’t really do too much, and I feel like there’s the public sentiment of them creating fear more than creating safety.”

Photos by Axsel Medower/Bear Witness