Eric Tatum opposes Fulton County using Flock cameras
Attorney and Republican nominee for chair of the Fulton County, Georgia, Board of Commissioners
“Because those safeguards have failed nearly everywhere the cameras are used, I oppose Fulton County using Flock cameras. A citizen's privacy comes before a government's convenience.”
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Appen Media Group published unedited written answers from both nominees for chair of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners in Georgia ahead of the Nov. 3, 2026, election.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Appen Media asked the nominees for Fulton County Commission chair for their views on Flock Safety and the backlash against it, and published their answers unedited. Tatum wrote that the national record has been misuse, which he called government overreach he would not support, and that the county should not expand or renew any surveillance camera contract without short data retention, a warrant or court order for sharing outside the county, a public search log, independent audits and a right to cancel.
After the quotation
In the same Q&A, his Democratic opponent, Mo Ivory, wrote that she is deeply troubled by privacy violations and by the use of these systems to gather information on citizens.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is whether networked license-plate reader systems such as Flock should exist and be used. Tatum listed the safeguards he would require for any surveillance camera contract, then said those safeguards have failed nearly everywhere and that he opposes Fulton County using Flock cameras. Opposing the county's use of the cameras is a call to refuse them, so Condemned fits.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Flock Safety
Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Ohioans should not have their movements routinely tracked, photographed, and stored simply for driving on public roads.”Read statement
“Tennesseans should be free from a surveillance state.”Read statement
“We need to restore real limits, real oversight, and real due process.”Read statement