Proton Gives Flock Camera Map a Swiss Home

TL;DR: Proton is hosting a copy of a researcher’s Flock surveillance map on Swiss servers after a trademark complaint sought its removal. The inventory lists more than 170,000 cameras and 130,000 other devices, but it is a late-2025 snapshot rather than a live count.

Swiss privacy company Proton has given a public map of Flock surveillance devices a home on its Swiss servers, backing a researcher whose work drew a takedown demand from the company he mapped.

The move keeps another copy of the map available as Americans debate who should have access to records of their daily travel. For privacy-minded citizens, it offers another way to examine a camera network already facing scrutiny over privacy, police access and public oversight. Cybernews reported that Proton republished security researcher Joshua Michael’s map after a trademark complaint sought its removal.

The reported numbers need to be taken with care. Despite headlines describing more than 300,000 cameras, Proton’s own account lists more than 170,000 cameras and over 130,000 other Flock devices. Those are different categories, and the total should not be read as a count of active license plate readers.

Users can search Proton’s map by ZIP code to find listed devices near their homes, workplaces or travel routes. Proton says the records came from Michael’s research into an access token that Flock had left publicly exposed without a login. He found the issue in November 2025, reported it to Flock and published his findings and map in December, according to Proton.

The map also carries an important limit: Proton describes it as a December 2025 snapshot. Devices added or removed since then will not be reflected. Proton says it is hosting the map without hosting or distributing the underlying dataset.

The dispute over keeping that map online centers on trademark claims.

According to Cybernews, brand-protection firm Doppel filed a complaint on Flock’s behalf Sept. 24. It argued that the site’s use of Flock’s trademark could confuse customers, even though the site carried a disclaimer denying any link to the company.

Proton rejected that reasoning.

“Nobody confuses a map of Flock’s cameras with Flock itself,” Proton legal head Marc Løebekken said. The outlet also reported that Flock patched the exposed-token flaw while maintaining that its information had not been leaked.

Alabama already has a prominent place in the camera-mapping fight.

As ALPolitics.com reported, software engineer Will Freeman launched DeFlock after noticing license plate cameras while moving to Huntsville. That project uses volunteer reports and OpenStreetMap to chart cameras from Flock and other vendors. It is separate from Michael’s map.

Flock challenged DeFlock’s name through a cease-and-desist demand. The Electronic Frontier Foundation defended Freeman, arguing that trademark law protects noncommercial criticism. DeFlock remained online. MapQuest has since added its own surveillance layer to its mobile app.

Police defend license plate readers as tools for finding stolen vehicles and developing leads. Flock promotes its technology as a way to help solve crimes faster — although there are significant questions about the company’s effectiveness data. The privacy concern is the breadth of collection: the cameras record passing vehicles, including those whose drivers are suspected of nothing, and make those sightings searchable.

That concern has several documented Alabama connections. The Electronic Frontier Foundation found that Homewood police ran four searches involving three vehicles in July 2025 using protest-related reasons. Those searches reached 1,308 camera networks.

Additionally, the Institute for Justice’s database of ALPR abuse lists nearly 300 total incidents, including four in Alabama: Lee County, Moody, Decatur and Springville.

Courts are weighing the limits of Flock’s usage. In an Oct. 1 ruling, U.S. District Judge Sara Hill found that an Oklahoma deputy’s warrantless search of a driver’s travel history through Flock and another plate-reader system violated the Fourth Amendment. The ruling concerns that search; it does not impose a nationwide ban on the cameras.

For Alabama communities weighing camera contracts, the maps provide a starting point for public oversight. Residents can ask where devices are placed, who may search the records, how long those records remain available and what happens when someone abuses that access. Proton’s Swiss-hosted copy gives them another place to begin — and Swiss-based protections against its removal.