City voted the cameras off. The cameras stayed on.
@mattvanswol · Matt Van Swol · July 1, 2026 · United States
High-engagement post (~536k views): after a safety committee vote to end a Flock contract (police could point to three convictions), the contract expired — then Flock reportedly kept the system live for free while the city 'figured it out.' City and vendor would not answer basic data-collection questions.
Why it is in the file
The 'off means off' problem: a council vote and an expired contract are not the same as cameras going dark. Use as a process warning, then confirm the locality before naming it in a formal comment.
The contract is expired. The elected body said no. Nobody re-authorized it. Flock won't say what it's doing with the data. ...but the cameras are STILL ON and being used by police
Posted on X by Matt Van Swol · @mattvanswol
Related in the file
As officers face misuse allegations, police departments rethink Flock cameras
NBC Boston · 2026-08-22
Palo Alto prepares to audit Flock camera system amid questions over data access
NBC Bay Area · 2026-08-22
Norfolk taxpayers pay $430K a year for Flock camera subscriptions, according to the city
13newsnow.com · 2026-08-21
Davidson County authorities make case ahead of vote on Flock Camera usage, mixed reactions
WXLV · 2026-08-21
Conroe police investigate alleged threats against city officials following Flock camera vote
ABC13 Houston · 2026-08-21