Reckless driving.
Additional offense.
Investigation.
These are UTDPD’s reasons for searching the 13 Flock cameras around UTD as seen from public search audits. As an university that takes great leaps to violate student free speech on campus, it seems UTD is all too eager to use artificial intelligence-powered surveillance cameras to record students entering and leaving campus.
Flock Automated License Plate Readers use AI to constantly record vehicle information including car models, colors and other identifying features such as scratches to add them into the Flock database.
Many cities and universities around the U.S. have decided to install Flock cameras, including the city of Richardson, to help combat crime. However, residents have responded with anger over concerns that Flock is an invasive and unsafe surveillance method.
The UTD Police Department said in a Flock Safety Forum that Flock cameras alert UTDPD of any car/scanned plate that has a “felony warrant, is reported stolen or is a suspect vehicle.” Additionally, data is stored and deleted within 30 days, accessible only to the police department.
Flock cameras create breaches of privacy and safety for students, staff and faculty particularly because camera data may be shared without consent and because they pose a risk to student protestors.
Not only do ALPRs record and store every vehicle/scanned plate regardless of whether or not somebody in that vehicle is under suspicion, there is also no public knowledge of how the data is shared.
The San Francisco Police Department has shown records that law enforcement “conducted searches on behalf of outside agencies that had no access to SFPD’s systems.” SFPD had granted access to an intelligence sharing center that shared camera data to other organizations conducting searches for outside agencies, which is illegal under California law.
Additionally, Mountain View Police Department stopped using Flock cameras after they found out that out-of-state agencies were accessing the stored data proving that information may be shared even without police departments’ consent. This creates a security risk as student data could be accessed and stored with other non-law enforcement agencies without UTDPD’s notice.
In Johnson County, TX, the police department used Flock cameras to find a woman who allegedly had an abortion. Police departments may be searching for Flock cameras to restrict or surveil people’s access to their reproductive health. This creates an unsafe environment for students dealing with abortion or pregnancy issues that may be interpreted to be illegal under Texas law.
A target on our backs
Additionally, there is reason for concern that immigration agencies may be investigating through Flock databases. Although UT Dallas prohibits the use of immigration enforcement, law enforcement agencies may be using Flock cameras to “conduct searches on behalf of ICE.” For example, Dallas PD conducted “ICE+ERO searches” (allowing officers to arrest and deport individuals) on camera networks they had access to. Because UTD shares camera data with Dallas PD, Flock cameras create real danger and harm to students concerned with immigration searches on campus. If Dallas PD searched thousands of camera networks, UTD was possibly one of those networks.
Flock ALPRs are particularly concerning to students and faculty that have been targeted by the university and UTDPD such as pro-Palestinian protesters. Students and faculty have been arrested or prosecuted by the university. UTDPD’s oversight committee does not indicate if they review whether officers are conducting Flock searches to target students or faculty involved with the Palestinian movement, and in what context Flock databases are being shared with other police departments.
However, Flock’s ability to track and collect data on protestors is concerning because law enforcement may use it to intimidate or prosecute protestors. In 2025, U.S. Border Patrol directly accessed Flock cameras to track down and arrest a protester blocking Border Patrol vehicles with detainees. Law enforcement can now search for protestors by their vehicle plates to arrest them because of an alleged violation of the law, regardless of whether or not the reason is valid. This restricts how students express their dissent when confronting law enforcement or administrators.
“Anyone can be considered a problem,” an anonymous mechanical engineering student said. “This prevents students from expressing themselves or prevents them from expressing a dissenting opinion. People know that if they’re going to a protest or a student club, it’s being tracked.”
Exercising free speech on campus now comes at a cost. The police could track your movements across multiple camera networks and regions. If you’ve been to other protests around the metroplex, law enforcement could search through UTD camera databases to collect information on your activities. The Beaumont Police Department in Texas accessed over one thousand camera networks to find two vehicles, citing “KINGS DAY PROTEST” as the reason for the search.
Exercising free speech on campus now comes at a cost. The police could track your movements.
Another search by the Lubbock Police Department for a vehicle cited “protest veh.” as the reason and accessed over five thousand networks (UTD shares its Flock data with both police departments). Using Flock cameras is UTDPD’s answer to pressure or coerce free speech off campus. Otherwise, protestors must be willing to end up on a database that can be shared to hundreds of other law enforcement agencies.
The anonymous student mentioned the mass backlash after student visas were being revoked last year, and says the same pressure should be put on UTD’s decision to install Flock cameras.
“Students and faculty all have a responsibility and a relationship to these technologies that are being developed and used,” the student said. “We need to be aware of how political abuses are being written into policies or how they’re being physically implemented so we can combat it as well.”
Capturing accountability on camera
Students should hold the university accountable for their installing of Flock ALPRs as they clearly violate student’s privacy and trust. We should demand changes to existing policy and university laws to protect students from invasive surveillance.
First, the Police Oversight Committee must expand its power to restrict the sharing of Flock data outside of campus (thereby localizing data and preventing it from reaching other agencies such as ICE) and to provide regular audits to the public on how Flock data is being used, as well as who is accessing that data.
Second, UTDPD must create policies in which both commissioned and non-commissioned officers may search Flock data under specific circumstances and conditions.
Third, UTDPD must disclose more information on how Flock data is being used, where its being shared, who its being reported to and what investigations are being conducted on Flock searches, if any, to prevent misuse of Flock data.
The best outcome is Flock cameras being removed from campus. For example, deleting all camera data and creating laws preventing installing ALPRs on campus. This may pose several problems for UTDPD using current camera data for ongoing investigations and will likely be rejected immediately.
Nevertheless, there are other ways to increase student input into how data may be restricted or monitored from Flock cameras. Flock cameras would have to be more localized, meaning that students should be able to request that data not be shared with police agencies, for example Dallas PD, due to camera data being searched by ICE. Flock cameras should also be audited more thoroughly, so people can track how that data is being used in investigations and whether it is for a good purpose.
The Police Oversight Committee could hold annual meetings to review policies they created on Flock usage and allow students and faculty to suggest any further changes that may be needed. For example, holding a public hearing or a legitimate space for students to speak up and be involved in decisions concerning ALPR cameras would be a step in creating transparent relations between the administrations and the students it continues to ignore in the decision-making process.