Back in September, I saw something new on my walk to class. There was no announcement, no public statement and certainly nothing asking for student opinions. It just quietly appeared, and I happened to notice it. Its silent arrival seemed to represent something bigger; the curtain being pulled back to reveal how devalued consent of the governed has become. I spotted a Flock device right behind Frasier Hall on Central Campus.
At first, I assumed it was a camera, because I’d heard so much about Flock cameras in the media. However, the product is a lesser-known device made by the same company: a gunshot detector called the Raven. The UNCO Her Campus President helped me determine this by using the DeFlock app, which uses user reports to track where devices are in your area. I researched the detector’s uses, misuses and weaknesses in order to compile a bigger picture of the device.
flock says…
According to Flock’s official webpage, the Raven records three seconds of audio when it detects a loud noise (intended for gunshots). The device can hold up to fifty seconds of sound, and anything it captures is held in a cloud for thirty days. It’s intended to capture the sounds of gunshots, either as evidence to be used up to thirty days later in court or to help police locate gunfire and respond quickly and more accurately. Recently, Flock reports that the devices became vulnerable to security attacks on the microphone’s system and information. They claim that it’s highly unlikely for the devices to be exploited through this weakness.
The people’s opinions
USA Today published an article last summer on the new gunshot detectors and the concerns raised by residents of the towns using them. The detectors have been called “police surveillance technology advocates have warned about” by the American Civil Liberties Union, USA Today says. Concerns include the possibility of secret surveillance, eavesdropping and the lack of consent involved in the devices’ implementations. Despite its flaws, officials in five states (NY, CA, VA, MI, GA) credit the systems for helping their police respond to incidents more efficiently than before. However, one detector was placed on private property without owner consent and caused a mother from Jackson, MS to worry for her and her children’s safety.Â
“…Can Americans trust Flock to keep their word, and can they further trust Flock to keep their info in the right hands?” -Sadie Sanders
A gunshot detector was mistakenly placed in Kaitlyn Vaughn’s front yard right into the ground of her lawn. She wasn’t consulted on this or given the chance to consent to the device being implemented. While, according to Flock themselves, the devices are used only to record loud noises like gunshots, this is not Vaughn’s worry. Not only is this a blatant violation of her right to privacy, the issue with tech like this is the amount of trust that residents are being forced to give to a private company hired by the government. In the Scott County Times, a councilman is even quoted calling them “listening devices”! This, largely, is the question that is being asked by concerned residents: Can Americans trust Flock to keep their word, and can they further trust Flock to keep their info in the right hands? Vaughn is quoted in USA Today saying, “I feel like everyone should have a right to privacy in their own home, and it makes you feel really vulnerable when you don’t know if someone’s listening all the time or not… you don’t have to be doing something wrong to want to have a private space.”
Vaughn also exposes how a proposed Flock feature would discriminate against neurodivergent people. The company wanted to add a “human distress” detector to their mics, and according to Vaughn, her two children are neurodivergent and “‘scream constantly'” regardless of distress. This would mean that the government could be consistently listening to her and her family.
Ethan Ambabo, former Flock employee, admits that while it’s rare, the detectors have caught gunshots along with pieces of conversation. He also explained in 2023 that the devices first record audio “snippets”, which are then sent to a “machine learning model” to be analyzed for gunshots. Interestingly, this is contrary to how Flock’s official site explains the device: a microphone triggered when gunshots are heard.Â
what about the bears?
It’s up to you to decide what you think about having a device like these on campus. Is it a necessary evil in the name of public safety? Or is it a violation of rights served by a private company? Whatever your opinion is, it matters. According to the USA Today article mentioned above, in San Jose, CA and Champaign, IL, officials stopped the use of the detectors when the devices didn’t work as efficiently as advertised. Out East in Roanoke, VA, a “botched rollout” and “unsettled residents” caused the city to remove its detectors. A Portland survey from the same article found that 48% of residents supported the use of Flock devices and 51% opposed. Even with a divide like that, the city decided to remove the devices due to pressure from residents. Raise your voice if you don’t like what’s happening. UNCO is your learning environment and you deserve a say. If you don’t know where to start, get loud. Talk about it with your friends and on social media. You can download DeFlock to track nearby devices, sign the petition to remove Greeley Flock cameras (a slightly different issue) or start your own petition.