Kent County Sheriff’s Office and the GRPD have created so-called transparency portals to appease the public even though many have been calling for Flock cameras to be banned

Since the beginning of 2025, groups like Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have been demanding that the GRPD and the Kent County Sheriff’s Office not share Flock camera images with ICE.

In recent months there has been a growing movement across the US and in Grand Rapids to ban the use of Flock cameras and all Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology. People are tired of mass surveillance technology, like Flock cameras, and some have created online tools to assist people in finding Flock cameras in their communities.

Over the past few months other groups have joined in the call for Flock and other ALPR technology to be banned in Grand Rapids and Kent County. As an initial response the City of Grand Rapids invited the GRPD and Flock company reps to speak during their August 25th Public Safety Committee meeting. GRIID found out that the ACLU asked to present as well, specifically about the dangers of Flock technology, but GR City officials denied that request.

During the Grand Rapids City Commission meeting that same night there were roughly 60 people who spoke about the GRPD’s use of Flock technology, along with support for the six sanctuary policies that Movimiento Cosecha has been demanding over the past 18 months.

As a response to the public pressure to ban Flock technology in Grand Rapids and Kent County, both the GRPD and the Kent County Sheriff’s Office have taken steps to create so-called transparency portals. The fact of the matter is that the Flock corporation has provided the so-called transparency portals for both the GRPD and the Kent County Sheriff’s Office. There are cops logos for both police agencies, but the website these portals are on is the Flock corporation page.

On the GRPD Flock Transparency Portal page under the heading of Community Impact there is a list of ways in which Flock camera use by the GRPD assisted them in solving crimes. In fact, these examples were the same examples that GRPD Deputy Chief Michael Maycroft gave during the August 25th Public Safety Committee meeting. On the right hand of that page there appears a long list of how Flock technology assisted police departments all across Michigan.

Nothing about what I mentioned so far provides much transparency. In fact, nothing else on these pages provides much that would even be considered transparency for thinking people. Yes, there is some data and listings of which other police departments are sharing their data with GR and Kent County, but there is no real transparency such as logs of where and when Flock cameras were used by the GRPD and the Kent County Sheriff’s Office, let along what they were used for.

Lastly, under the Policy & Trust section it lists What Flock Does Not do or Detect. Look just because cops are saying that the Flock technology doesn’t do certain things, doesn’t mean we have to believe them. I certainly don’t.

More importantly, most people who have engaged the City of Grand Rapids and Kent County Commissioners over the Flock camera issue are calling for those two governing bodies to ban the use of the Flock cameras or any other ALPR technology. People don’t want the government collecting data on them, nor do they want their privacy invaded nor to be targeted by police.

Grand Rapids and Kent County hoped that the so-called transparency portals would appease the public over concerns of mass surveillance. What the local governments have done is demonstrate that they don’t listen to public input or public demands. Don’t they know that this will only embolden increased public outrage over mass surveillance?