Column By Mike Bibb
“The debate comes as Flock technology continues to expand across southeastern Arizona. Safford originally approved a $285,000 state grant from the Arizona Department of Emergency Management to cover the multi-year program.”
— “What the flock is going on?”, Gila Herald, July 15, 2026.
What’s the price of recording motorists’ vehicle license numbers in Safford, Arizona?
Apparently, $285,000.
Who approved this program?
The Safford City Council.
How long has it been going on?
Not sure, but many cameras have already been set up and are currently in use. So, guess the Safford City Council approved the program several months ago, and it’s been in the planning and implementation stages since.
Why are the cameras such a hot topic?
Primarily, because they can record license numbers and other distinguishing marks on a vehicle. Most motorists are probably unaware they may be being photo’d as they drive around.
Aren’t these cameras similar to older speed-recording cameras that caused a public uproar several years ago?
Yes. Like speed cameras, the information is gathered by a machine, recorded and stored without the intervention of a police officer. Then traffic tickets are mailed to the alleged offender.
Can these cameras be programmed to gather additional information on the vehicle and owner?
Believe so. It’s been suggested that private firearm purchases by citizens who have gone through the customary background check conducted by ordinary Federal Firearms License gun dealers could have that information stored in these camera systems and matched to the vehicle’s owner. Conceivably, other personal data could also be input into the camera’s storage capacity.
As is often the case when dealing with the government, not everything is revealed. What seems like an innocent, worthwhile program evolves into something less innocent.
The bottom line of all this commotion is that the cameras were approved, installed, and are currently being used with little public notice.
Raising the question: How many of the council members voted to implement this program and why? Is there really a need in Safford for this type of surveillance apparatus?
Now that the cat’s out of the bag, what’s going to be the council’s next move? They have at least three choices — ignore the problem, continue with it, or remove it.
Wouldn’t it be wise to abandon the camera program rather than let it fester and face even more disgruntled citizens at future council meetings?
Safford is a small rural community in southeastern Arizona — not a large urban metroplex with big-city thinking, big-city ways, and big-city costs of doing things.
Here’s an idea: Before this mess turns into another city faux pas, extract the cameras and send them back to wherever they came from.
Send the money, too, if that’s what it takes!
The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author.
Editor’s Note: Proponents argue that the Flock camera network is a passive, audited tool that keeps Safford safer by quickly identifying criminals and protecting vulnerable populations, without actively interfering in the daily lives of law-abiding citizens.
