You’re Paying Nearly $500,000 for Greene County to Track You— Every Mile, Every Day, 24/7

GREENE COUNTY — Taxpayers in Greene County are on the hook for nearly half-a-million dollars in a sweeping surveillance contract with Flock Safety, after Greene County Council voted to bring these AI assisted cameras to our area.

This was all set into motion after recommendations from Prosecutor Jared Holtsclaw and Sheriff George Dallaire, and was further supported by the Greene County Council and Commissioners. (Council Members Ron Lehman and Randall Brown voted against them.)

This has triggered serious concerns that the county may be inching closer to a 24-hour “camera on every road” model of public monitoring. And that you can't go anywhere without being watched by your own government.

What Are Flock Cameras?

Flock cameras are always-on license-plate scanners, but they are much more than that, they track every vehicle passing by, logging drivers’ movements, habits, and locations into a searchable database for law enforcement, all without a warrant.

These systems don’t just read plates; they capture vehicle color, make, model, distinguishing features, and store that data for 30 days after which they are allegedly destroyed. This creates a detailed record of where ordinary people go, who they visit, and when. Supporters call it “public safety,” but in reality, Flock cameras function as a mass-surveillance network that treat every resident like a suspect and push small communities closer to a 24/7 police-state level of monitoring.

For reference, driving home from work today I (the editor) spotted at least 5 Flock Cameras that I could see. That means that over the course of a month, driving to work 5 days a week, these cameras would have taken at minimum 200 photos of me in my vehicle (not counting if I went anywhere else throughout the week) without any warrant or any crime committed. In my opinion this is an excessive abuse of power and an overreach of the governments authority.

(If you don't make it any farther than this but already hate the sound of these cameras in your backyard, sign this change petition to have these camera's removed below.)

Documents reveal the county has signed three separate five-year agreements totaling approximately $430,000 for a network of 25 AI cameras, annual software and data-sharing access, and a “community network” that links local scans into a nationwide database.

Massive Vulnerabilities for Exploitation

This information comes from a study conducted by a well-known digital security researcher and educator whose work frequently exposes vulnerabilities in government technology and private surveillance systems. That we be linked after this summary.

The Issues:

1. Serious Security Vulnerabilities

• Physical “hack button” exploit: By pressing a sequence of buttons on the back of a Flock camera, a hidden Wi-Fi access point can be opened, allowing someone nearby to connect, gain a shell, and take full control of the device (root access).
• Cheap, easy tools: A $5 “rubber ducky” USB can be plugged into exposed ports to automatically run attack scripts, turning the camera into a spy device, botnet client, credential-stealer, or malware host.
• Hard-coded data & weak protection: Cameras store hard-coded credentials, API keys, and Wi-Fi info inside the device. Researchers found clear-text passwords and other sensitive data in network traffic.
• RF “Tempest” leak: The camera hardware leaks enough radio frequency energy that a skilled attacker with RF gear can reconstruct what the camera is seeing from several feet away—without touching the device.

2. Data & Privacy Problems

• Contradiction of Flock’s own claims:
  • Flock says it only records vehicles, encrypts data end-to-end.
  • Researchers showed the cameras capture and store images of people and surroundings, keep older images (including factory test photos), and access that data unencrypted at runtime.
• Dark-web police logins for sale: Law-enforcement Flock accounts were found for sale on dark-web markets, suggesting real-world credential compromise.
• Wi-Fi & LTE hijacking: Because the cameras will connect to known SSIDs and send unencrypted traffic, attackers can:
  • Set up fake Wi-Fi networks with those names, or
  • Hijack LTE connections using stingray-style tools,
    and then intercept credentials, streams, and other data.

3. Mapping Leaks

• Leaky maps: Publicly accessible ArcGIS layers linked to Flock use included:
  • Patrol routes, officer names, phone numbers, and emails.
  • “Hot list” license-plate alerts (thousands of records), reasons for flagging, locations, times, and camera IDs.
    This means anyone who found those maps could track people and patrol cars over months.

4. Outdated & Unsupported Software

• Many cameras run Android Things 8 / 8.1, an operating system discontinued in 2021 with hundreds of known vulnerabilities and no current security updates—yet they’re still used to monitor the public.

5. Oversight, Governance, and Democratic Concerns

• No meaningful public audits: More than 80,000 cameras have been deployed nationwide with no known independent, public security audits of the hardware/software.
• Cities that try to remove Flock cameras sometimes find:
  • Flock simply reinstalls devices, or
  • Legal complications because cities lease the cameras instead of owning them.
• People are tracked without consent or the ability to opt out, often in small towns where every trip in or out passes a camera.

Checkout This Video To See the EXTENSIVE Vulnerabilities within Flock Cameras

Serious Legal Challenges

While this camera's use is already widespread, courts and regulators are beginning to push back. In Commonwealth v. McCarthy (Massachusetts), the state’s highest court flagged that:

“widespread use of ALPRs … could implicate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of a person’s public movements.”

A similar legal battle is already underway in Virginia, where the Institute for Justice has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Norfolk over its use of Flock Safety cameras. The suit argues that installing more than 170 cameras to record license plates, vehicle details, and travel patterns amounts to unconstitutional, warrantless surveillance that violates citizens’ privacy.

Civil liberties groups like the ACLU warn the same technology could allow local governments—including Greene County—to quietly build detailed movement histories of residents without oversight. (Source: Institute for Justice v. City of Norfolk, 2025)

Here is a video from the Institute for Justice, a lawfirm currently suing Flock Camera Systems, explaining how these cameras work:

A Costly “Safety” Investment

The first contract alone commits taxpayers to $229,875 for 15 cameras. Another adds $125,000 for five solar-powered “Falcon Flex” units, and a third runs $76,625 for five additional cameras. While marketed as crime-fighting tools, these systems will cost the small rural county nearly half a million dollars—money critics argue could have been better spent on community programs, local policing, or infrastructure.

Response From Local Leadership

Linton News reached out to the County Commissioners, County Council, and The County Prosecutor with many questions regarding these cameras.

We had no response from the County Commissioners.

The County Council had a few minor responses advocating to direct the questions to the County Prosecutor and online minutes and video of the meeting (It's worth noting the meeting minutes were very unclearly written and the YouTube video they recommended we watch had no sound for that meeting).

County Prosecutor Jared Holtsclaw did answer every question we sent in and further discussed concerns at great length over the phone. We would like to extend our sincere appreciation to Prosecutor Holtsclaw for his professional and transparent attitude regarding this conversation.

Here is a brief summary of the questions and answers. We recommend you read the full interaction to properly understand both sides of this discussion in the link below.

Prosecutor Jared Holtsclaw's Summarized Reply

The Greene County Prosecutor defended the county’s decision to implement Flock Safety cameras, explaining that the push originated from “multiple requests from law enforcement officers” and from prior cases where out-of-county Flock data had “helped solve important crimes,” including burglaries, juvenile recovery cases, and the Penick double-murder investigation. He said he ultimately supported the contracts because “I know they will help our investigators solve important crimes; out-of-county Flock cameras already have.”

He also stated that the process included several publicly advertised meetings between October and December of 2024, noting that they were “open to the public, livestreamed, and included discussion from both supporters and concerned citizens.” According to him, both cost and legality were addressed at those meetings, and he added that he was “not aware of any statutes or case law prohibiting the use of Flock cameras” on public roads at the time.

On funding, the Prosecutor said the combined five-year expense of $434,750 would be paid through Public Safety LIT and the Jail Commissary Account, stressing that “there is no auto-renewal” and that the County Council will be free to discontinue the system after the contract expires.

Addressing privacy and security, he stated that only trained, sworn officers from his office and the Sheriff’s Department will have access, with multi-factor authentication and mandatory justification for each search. He said he plans to audit usage every six months and believes the system is secure: “I believe the information gathered by Flock cameras in Greene County is safe and secure.” He acknowledged the recent national report of stolen police credentials but stated he is “not aware of any such breaches in Indiana.”

The Prosecutor said he is “not opposed to sharing the results of audits upon request” once the cameras go live. He reiterated that Flock cameras do not issue tickets, do not use facial recognition, and capture only vehicle images on public roads.

Big Brother at the Gate?

With cameras positioned all around Greene County and data retained in a central network, this deal effectively treats every citizen as a suspect. Privacy advocates warn that the technology may capture “a comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” American Civil Liberties Union+1

A Stark Reminder

As Benjamin Franklin warned:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Greene County residents now face the question: Has more surveillance become the price for “safety,” and if so, what is that true price?

Want Change? Sign this petition to have the government surveillance removed or contact your local representative below:

Greene County Prosecutor

Email: Jarrod.Holtsclaw@co.greene.in.us

Greene County Sheriff

Sheriff's Office Phone Number: 812-384-4411

County Council Email

Bryan K. Woodall bryan.woodall@co.greene.in.us
Jerry R. Frye jrfrye@yahoo.com
Karen Abrams ksa5024@hotmail.com
Randall Brown randall.brown@co.greene.in.us
Kelly Zimmerly, President kelly.zimmerly@co.greene.in.us
Ronald L. Lehman ron.lehman@co.greene.in.us
Brent A. Murray, Vice President

Board of Commissioners Email and Phone Numbers

nathan.abrams@co.greene.in.us 812-322-5602

ed.michael@co.greene.in.us 812-345-1006

rick.graves@co.greene.in.us 812-659-2077

Linton News will continue to follow developments on how the camera system is implemented, what oversight safeguards the county adopts, and how budget priorities may shift in the years ahead.