Literally everybody in a position of political authority not named Donald Trump is trying to distance law enforcement from using Flock cameras. And then there’s our elected Augusta County sheriff, goes by the name Donald Smith, who is going out of his way to prostrate himself on the altar of Flock.
Smith not only went before the Augusta County Board of Supervisors on Monday to make the case for Flock, he actually included in his presentation what he later called in a release a “video presented to the Board of Supervisors during today’s work session for more details about the Flock system” that comes straight from the official YouTube page of, you guessed it, Flock!
From the archives
- Coverage of the controversy over the use of Flock cameras: click here.
Dear, gawd.
Scott Seaton, who represents the Wayne District on the Board Supervisors, where the two Flock cameras in operation in Augusta County are located, had noted, in a BOS meeting earlier this month, that the cameras had a low hit rate – Seaton said the two cameras had recorded, in the 30 days prior to the Sept. 9 Board of Supervisors meeting, eight hits for cars that may have ties to some sort of crime from more than 65,000 surveillance opportunities.
The success rate there: .01 percent.
It was Seaton’s observations that led to Monday’s demonstration from the sheriff, which had Smith telling the BOS that the cameras “have already proven valuable in several investigations, including helping identify a suspect vehicle in the homicide of Andrew W. Mitts Jr., locating stolen vehicles, assisting in missing‑person cases, and supporting an investigation into a recent tire‑dumping incident.”
That’s the anecdotal supportive evidence.
The data that the sheriff included in a release to local media outlets on total vehicle reads and agency searches generated by those reads proved Seaton’s point – the dataset reported 182 searches from the 3,495,807 vehicle reads for the 2026 year-to-date, which would be a hit rate of .005 percent.
For reference: a 1 percent hit rate would be 34,958 hits.
A .1 percent hit rate would be 3,496 hits.
Even a .01 percent hit rate would be 350 hits.
We’re talking half of .01 percent here.
For this miniscule return on investment, the other 99.995 percent of us who drive by the two cameras are subject to state-sponsored video surveillance, for no good reason.
“Many citizens have also shared concerns about privacy and possible misuse. I understand and respect those concerns,” Smith said, in a statement in a release from his office. “The Flock system is secured to meet federal and military standards. Access to the system is strictly controlled, monitored, and logged. This system is then audited by the Sheriff’s Office and the Virginia State Police. Additionally, Virginia law makes it clear that misuse or improper access is prohibited. Under Virginia Code §2.2‑5517(D), there are penalties for abusing the system.”
The penalties only come into play if somebody finds out the system is being abused; and who do you report abuse to, the Sheriff’s Office?
Sure, they’re going to make sure they’re not breaking the law.
“Augusta County is a large community with limited law enforcement resources, and technology like Flock cameras can help investigators work cases more efficiently,” Smith said, failing to acknowledge the massive inefficiency of the cameras, though he did go on to concede, shockingly, that “it is important that we carefully consider privacy and make sure any technology we use is handled responsibly.”
“I want our citizens to know that I am listening,” Smith said. “I will continue to review how the system is used, weigh its benefits and limitations, and thoughtfully consider community concerns before making decisions about Flock cameras’ future usage in Augusta County.
“I ask for your patience as we work through these issues,” the sheriff went on. “My goal is to keep Augusta County safe while maintaining the trust and confidence of the people we serve. Thank you for continuing to share your thoughts, questions, and concerns. I am committed to protecting our community while respecting the rights, privacy and freedoms of everyone.”
No, he’s not.
Share
Chris Graham
