A college in Illinois tried to cancel its Flock contact and it refused
Elgin Community College in Illinois installed six Flock safety cameras in April 2025 to enhance campus security, but concerns quickly emerged. By September 2025, the college's administration discovered that Flock was sharing data with Customs and Border Patrol, camera feeds lacked proper security protocols, and both law enforcement and company employees were abusing access to the data. These findings prompted the college to request the removal of all cameras in October 2025.
When Flock refused to remove the cameras despite contractual requests, citing non-violation of the agreement, Elgin Community College took matters into its own hands in a display of escalating conflict. College staff covered the cameras with black bin bags and zip ties, only to find workers in what appeared to be unmarked Flock vehicles repeatedly removing the coverings. This unusual back-and-forth continued for months until the contract finally expired in April 2026, at which point Flock removed the equipment.
- College requested Flock remove cameras citing data-sharing and security risks
- Company refused, leading to months of staff covering cameras and workers uncovering them
- Cameras were finally removed when contract naturally expired in April 2026
New here? Start with this
Flock is a company that manufactures surveillance camera systems sold to educational institutions and other organisations. Elgin Community College in Illinois installed six of these cameras in April 2025 to improve campus security.
Within months, the college discovered issues with Flock's operations. Camera feeds were being shared with United States Customs and Border Patrol without the college's full knowledge, the systems had security vulnerabilities, and there were cases of unauthorised access by law enforcement officers and Flock employees. The college requested removal of all cameras.
Flock refused to remove them. The situation raises questions about data privacy, security and whether institutions maintain control over surveillance systems once installed on their premises.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The college discovered that Flock was sharing student data with federal authorities without clear consent, maintained inadequate security protocols, and permitted employee misconduct with access to sensitive information. These findings represented serious breaches of the provider's fundamental duty to protect data securely and lawfully; the college reasonably argued that a contract for security cameras necessarily implies those systems will be properly maintained and used appropriately. Given these fundamental failures, immediate termination was justified to protect students' privacy and safety.
The case against
Flock maintained they had not breached the explicit terms of the contract the college agreed to, and therefore retained a valid claim to their equipment until the agreement expired. Commercial contracts depend on both parties honouring binding terms regardless of later dissatisfaction; unilateral cancellation would undermine stability and discourage companies from accepting institutional clients. If the college believed Flock had violated data protection laws, regulatory complaints and litigation existed rather than obstruction of the company's property.