Local Governments Drop Flock Cameras Amid Growing Backlash
Photo credits
At least 10 local governments and police departments have moved to end, restrict, or curb their use of Flock Safety surveillance technology since the summer. These choices come as part of a wider public pushback against the rapid expansion of advanced artificial intelligence tools, including facial recognition and new data centers.
Founded in 2017, Flock provides more than 100,000 cameras nationwide that use software for license plate reading, drones, and acoustic sensors designed to detect gunshots and other noises. While law enforcement agencies use the equipment to track stolen vehicles, locate missing individuals, and solve crimes, communities have raised alarms over data sharing, privacy, and procurement practices.
Over the past three months, local leaders in Monroe, Ohio; Newburgh, New York; Richmond, Virginia; Hopkinton, Massachusetts; New Bedford, Massachusetts; and Lansing, Michigan, have moved to terminate their contracts with Flock. Police departments in East Bridgewater and Grafton, Massachusetts, have also announced plans to halt their use of the cameras. In Texas, residents of League City voted against their police department's continued use of the technology, prompting plans for the cameras to be removed.
Additional cities and agencies have taken similar steps. Asheville, North Carolina, lost access to the technology after its city council voted to cancel its contract in August, and the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office in Colorado announced in September that it would stop using the devices. Sheriff Joseph Roybal stated in a press release that his office possesses the necessary training and tools to apprehend criminals without relying on Flock cameras.
Tatiana Rice, a senior director for U.S. legislation at The Future of Privacy Forum, noted that the public reaction highlights a growing skepticism toward technology. Because surveillance cameras are visible fixtures on local streets, they provide a tangible focus for public resentment in a way that online personal data sharing does not.
Concerns have also been fueled by instances of technology misuse. In August, a Missouri officer was accused of using Flock cameras to stalk his ex-wife, while a Texas officer was sentenced to prison in September for using the system to stalk an ex-girlfriend and her family.
Another major issue involves federal access to local data. In March, Ithaca, New York, passed a resolution to end its Flock contract after reviewing reports that the company had allowed federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to query local databases to investigate immigrants without specific local authorization. Furthermore, newly obtained data from police departments revealed that U.S. Customs and Border Protection had direct backend access to more than 80,000 Flock cameras nationwide through a pilot program.
Flock stated that the company does not sell data, does not have a contract with ICE, and that every customer retains ownership and control over its information. Following privacy concerns, Flock announced in August that it would shorten its default data storage period for new customers from 30 days to seven days and require a case code before any database searches. The company also noted that it has paused all federal pilots.
Federal lawmakers and state governments have responded to the controversy as well. Florida banned license plate readers from state highways, and Texas paused state funding for Flock. In Congress, federal legislators introduced measures such as the Flock-Off Act and the Ban Flock Act to restrict federal spending on similar surveillance systems. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump expressed support for the technology due to its utility for law enforcement.
Summary
The coordinated push by local governments to drop surveillance cameras highlights a widening conflict between public safety tools and civil liberties. As communities re-evaluate automated monitoring systems and federal data access, the debate over transparency and oversight in policing continues to shape local and national policy.