In an increasingly polarized political landscape, a shared concern has emerged that transcends party lines: Flock Safety's ubiquitous license plate reading cameras. These devices, installed in numerous urban areas across the United States, capture the license plate number of every passing vehicle and compile movement data, which is then stored in databases accessible to local governments and police departments. Flock reports having 120,000 active cameras nationwide, and law enforcement agencies assert their utility in solving crimes and locating individuals. However, a rising tide of criticism points to alleged police misconduct, violations of privacy rights, and concerns about mass surveillance.
Opponents argue that the cameras raise significant constitutional and privacy issues. Brian McKellar, an anti-Flock organizer, likens the technology to "sci-fi AI, like, the government’s-watching-you kind of movies." Over recent months, Flock cameras have become the focal point of protests and the formation of grassroots organizations like DeFlock. Some individuals have resorted to vandalizing or obstructing the cameras.
The protests are notable for their lack of partisan alignment. Progressive online communities express concerns about the cameras as tools of a "fascist government," while conservatives with libertarian leanings view them as an infringement on private life by an overreaching government.
Mckellar, identifying as a conservative who values law and order, believes the cameras extend too far into personal freedom. "I don’t live in Idaho because I want to be surveilled all the time," he stated, expressing a desire for less government intrusion. He became aware of his local police department's use of Flock cameras last year and subsequently helped launch DeFlock Idaho, a group aimed at urging city councils to reject the technology and obtain public records on its use.
He emphasizes that the issue is not confined to one political ideology, noting a growing coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents opposing Flock cameras in his area. "It’s not even just the Feds anymore. It’s the city and the county that can now watch and surveil me in detail," McKellar said. "This is definitely not just a conservative issue. I don’t think there’s a line between where you sit on a party affiliation."
A spokesperson for Flock stated that their technology aided in over 1 million criminal investigations and public safety incidents in 2025, contributing to the resolution of 20% of cases in jurisdictions where the cameras are used. The company also claims that more than 10,000 missing individuals were located using Flock technology that year. Police officials have lauded the cameras, with one chief describing them as "like having extra sets of eyes."
Concerns Over Data Misuse and Accuracy
A primary objection raised by critics involves the potential for police misuse of the collected data. The absence of uniform national regulations governing access and usage, coupled with varying data retention periods among police departments, exacerbates these concerns. Dave Maass, director of investigations at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted instances of officers allegedly using the system to stalk individuals, including former or prospective romantic partners who have no connection to criminal activity.
The Institute for Justice reported 39 cases of romantic stalking by police using Flock cameras within the past five years. In one documented case, a former deputy in Virginia allegedly used the license plate tracking system to stalk a woman he was involved with over 1,600 times in several months. "We’re seeing officers abusing the system to stalk their exes [and] women that they’re interested in," Maass said. He highlighted that Flock databases allow police to track a vehicle's movements, raising concerns about government-created movement databases.
Concerns also extend to the accuracy of the technology. An internal police analysis in Roseville, California, indicated that 71% of alerts for stolen or felony-linked vehicles generated by Flock cameras contained misread license plate numbers. In Ohio, a man is suing his city after being pulled over based on Flock camera data that incorrectly identified his vehicle as stolen, leading to the deployment of K-9 units. In Arkansas, officers detained a couple and their infant at gunpoint after their vehicle was incorrectly flagged as stolen by a Flock camera. A San Diego man spent nearly a month in jail for attempted carjacking due to a Flock camera placing his vehicle at the scene of the crime, despite his car being miles away at the time.
Flock has responded by stating, "Flock understands that communities have questions about privacy. Those decisions belong to communities and their elected officials. Flock supports clear legal guardrails, local control, documented search purposes, audit trails and transparency. Public safety and privacy should coexist."
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
Legal experts also raise alarms about the constitutionality of the technology. Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute specializing in homeland security and civil liberties, believes the "vehicle fingerprinting system" poses significant Fourth Amendment issues, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. "When people are just going about their daily lives, and having the government collect this data on them in the absence of any kind of criminal predicate, that itself is absolutely constitutionally problematic," Eddington stated.
He urged the public not to dismiss the technology based on the assumption of having "nothing to hide." "It doesn’t matter whether you think you’re doing nothing wrong," Eddington cautioned. "It only matters whether or not the cops or the prosecutors decide that you are doing something wrong. And then your life gets turned upside down. And in most cases, it’s never the same after that."
Legislative and Activist Responses
In response to these concerns, legislative efforts are underway. In California, Senate Bill 1013 proposes requirements for officer training, annual audits, and logs of police database searches. Meanwhile, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced a bill that would cut funding for jurisdictions utilizing Flock cameras.
The opposition has also manifested in direct action, with Flock cameras being vandalized or destroyed in at least 33 incidents across 23 states. Activist groups like DeFlock actively map the spread of these cameras, utilizing user-submitted tips to document their proliferation.