- The author conducted a personal surveillance experiment by driving over 300 miles through various communities to see how often their vehicle was captured by Flock license plate reading (LPR) cameras.
- Nine out of fifteen law enforcement agencies complied with the author's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, providing footage of their vehicle, while four agencies denied the request.
- Flock cameras capture detailed images of vehicles, including license plates, make, model, and unique identifiers like bumper stickers, creating a 'vehicle fingerprint'.
- The author's vehicle was captured multiple times in Roanoke and Staunton, revealing patterns that could predict their movements.
- Martinsville, which has 48 Flock cameras, only captured the author's vehicle once, surprising even the police chief.
- Danville had a contract with Flock but had not yet installed the cameras at the time of the author's visit.
- The author reflects on the ethical implications of public surveillance, including potential misuse for stalking or other personal investigations.
- The police's use of Flock cameras raises concerns about oversight and the public's right to access footage of themselves captured in public spaces.
- The author observed a real-life example of police requesting surveillance footage from a Dunkin' Donuts to aid in an investigation, highlighting the balance between privacy and public safety.