- Twenty-three jurisdictions nationwide have already voted to cancel or reject Flock cameras following concerns about surveillance and privacy.
- In October 2024, the group DeFlock was founded to advocate for local pushback.
- Last summer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and DHS began pilot programs using Flock data, which were paused after backlash.
- In July, a group of 15 Michigan Democrats called for ceasing contracts with federal agencies for ALPRs on state property.
- In August, Connecticut senators called for a voluntary pause on new ALPR installations and pledged legislation in 2027.
- On Aug. 1, police in Winona, Minnesota, discovered all Flock cameras missing after a man cut wires.
- Texas Rep. Keith Self introduced legislation requiring a warrant for federal access to Flock data.
- Burchett introduced a bill in July to prohibit federal agencies from using automated surveillance technologies.
- Massie plans to introduce legislation to prohibit police departments that deploy Flock or similar systems.
- Critics say the network has grown faster than governments can enact safeguards, while supporters argue the vehicle-monitoring systems already include data protections and are valuable tools for law enforcement.
- Currently, there are over 127,000 Flock cameras and ALPRs across the United States and Puerto Rico.
- Libertarians have long warned Americans about privacy issues regarding ALPRs, pointing to them being a form of mass surveillance that threatens the Fourth Amendment.
- Some have noted the databases can be used to compile information such as where people drive, worship, seek medical care, or even which political events they attend.
Flock license plate cameras are under scrutiny as 23 jurisdictions have canceled their contracts, citing concerns over mass surveillance and privacy violations. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argue these systems threaten the Fourth Amendment, while supporters defend their role in crime prevention.1012
The rapid expansion of Flock cameras, with over 127,000 installed across the U.S. and Puerto Rico, has sparked legislative responses. Texas Rep. Keith Self has proposed requiring warrants for accessing Flock data, while Burchett and Massie aim to restrict federal use of such technologies.789
Concerns intensified after federal pilot programs using Flock data to combat human trafficking and fentanyl distribution faced backlash, leading to their suspension. In Michigan, a group of 15 Democrats urged the state to halt contracts with federal agencies for ALPR installations, while Connecticut senators called for a voluntary pause on new installations.35
Flock maintains that its cameras only capture publicly visible information and are used for crime investigations, not civilian monitoring. The company emphasizes that it does not sell customer data or use facial recognition, asserting that data sharing is controlled by customers.
“We’ve been advocating for people to push back at a local level, and it’s working,” said Will Freeman, founder of the group DeFlock, which aims to combat the proliferation of these cameras.2
“The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a campaign to ban Flock cameras, while DeFlock founder Will Freeman says local pushback is working. Over 127,000 cameras are deployed nationwide, and a recent incident in Winona, Minnesota, saw all 29 cameras disabled after a man cut wires.”
