What Does the New Transparency Portal Leave Unanswered?
By Rita Cook
DESOTO – DeSoto has been using Flock Safety license-plate reader cameras for years. But only now does the public have a dedicated transparency portal through which residents can examine how the technology is being used.
Reportedly, the DeSoto Police Department will soon be presenting an updated Flock camera presentation so residents can decide if this type of surveillance is necessary in DeSoto.
The department also says Flock camera data access is restricted to authorized personnel and subject to training, auditing and supervisory oversight. It says the technology is not intended for general surveillance, personal use, political purposes, immigration enforcement or other unauthorized purposes.
In February 2025, DeSoto Police Chief Joe Costa told the City Council that DeSoto had been using Flock cameras for five or six years and was continuing to expand its network.
At that meeting, the city approved funding for the annual subscription for five city Flock cameras. Costa said the department was growing its “cadre” of cameras each year.
But the five city-owned cameras do not necessarily tell the entire story of Flock technology available to DeSoto police.
Costa told the council that HOAs and other community locations within DeSoto have their own Flock cameras, which he said were spreading throughout the community.
That point deserves attention because privately owned Flock cameras can create a larger network than the city itself purchases.
At a July 9, 2024 public-safety town hall, Costa told residents that the department had encouraged HOAs to install Flock cameras at neighborhood entrances. He explained that if an HOA gave police access to the information, officers could go back and examine the vehicle data when investigating an incident in the neighborhood.
In other words, the number of cameras owned by the city is not necessarily the same as the number of Flock cameras whose information may be available to DeSoto investigators.
And that distinction matters. Even more so now, since an additional 30 proposed PD Flock cameras have been discussed.
At a May 5, 2026, City Council meeting, Costa presented a proposal contingent on grant funding involving approximately 30 Flock cameras across the city. He described the goal as covering entrances, exits and major corridors, including Belt Line Road and Pleasant Run Road.
The proposal prompted questions from council members about privacy, data sharing and restrictions on information.
The discussion illustrates the central issue surrounding Flock technology: a camera does not simply record a plate at one location. When multiple cameras are connected—and when investigators can potentially access cameras operated by other entities, the system can provide information about where a vehicle was detected at different places and times.
That makes transparency more than a public-relations exercise. It becomes a question of what residents can see about how the system operates.
Other North Texas cities show what transparency can look like and have had their transparency portals up much longer than DeSoto, so the city is not operating in a vacuum.
Midlothian maintains a Flock transparency page that tells residents how many cameras it has, which agencies receive externally shared information, its data-retention and use policy, and a public search audit covering the previous 30 days.
Frisco’s Police Department publishes periodic Flock usage reviews. The report also states that every database query requires a description of the reason for the search and that the department’s audits found the searches complied with approved reasons for access.
These cities do not necessarily operate identical systems, and differences in what agencies publish do not by themselves establish that one department is complying or another is not.
But they demonstrate that residents can be given concrete information about the operation and use of ALPR systems.
That raises a straightforward question for DeSoto residents; does the city’s transparency portal account only for the five city-operated cameras, or does it also reflect privately operated Flock cameras that DeSoto police can access?
If those privately operated cameras are outside the portal, another question follows, which is how many additional Flock cameras within or around DeSoto can police access, who controls them, and under what circumstances can their information be searched or shared?
Those are questions about transparency—not accusations of wrongdoing.
NewRepublic.com reported a few weeks ago that a hacker collective “tore down a Flock camera, scoured its insides, and shared the results with Wired.”
The findings showed that the cameras were logging more than just license plate numbers. The results indicated the camera had data that included “millions of images” over a few weeks’ time that had cataloged people, bicycles, and small details such as bumper stickers.
There is a difference between an officer receiving an alert concerning a particular vehicle and a city building a large, interconnected network capable of collecting vehicle-location information across numerous roads, cameras and potentially multiple jurisdictions.
The question is not simply whether Flock cameras are “legal.”
It is how the technology is deployed, what information is retained, who can access it, what searches are permitted and what safeguards exist to prevent misuse.
Those are precisely the kinds of questions transparency is supposed to help the public answer.
While DeSoto says its new portal represents a commitment to accountability and responsible use of public-safety technology, commitment will be measured over time.
For now residents can ask how many searches are conducted. How many alerts are generated? How often is information shared with outside agencies? How many people have access? How frequently are searches audited? How many searches are unrelated to a criminal investigation? How often are records preserved beyond the normal retention period?
Chief Costa did not return messages regarding the timing and scope of the transparency portal, the proposed 30-camera expansion, privately operated Flock cameras, data-sharing practices, retention, auditing and concerns raised during the City Council discussion, so those questions are unanswered. What is answered is that the portal is available now and while this technology is designed to make vehicles easier to find, it should not mean the public has to work so hard to understand how the technology is being used.
