What the Flock?! May 15, 2026

Unsurprisingly (if you’ve been following along), there have been even more reports about the many problems with Flock Safety’s AI-powered license plate readers and other surveillance tools. (Do you know about Flock’s many drone programs? A Flock representative recently told a reporter that “a human operator is part of each step except one.” He goes on to explain that the drone “flies to the location by itself. But then once it's on scene the operator can manipulate the camera, zoom in on things to try and get more information.” Is it just us, or did that explanation not really make you feel any better?)

404 Media reported that Dunwoody, GA residents were alarmed to learn that Flock employees accessed sensitive areas of a local recreation center (pool, gym). Flock responded to the claims saying that the access in question was part of an authorized product demonstration program. Flock then adjusted their demonstration policy to prohibit viewing of sensitive areas. (If this seemingly hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar style course correction feels familiar, that’s because it is. Flock has a history of providing transparency after their policies have been publicly identified as problematic. See here and here.)

This week, a Connecticut columnist wrote an article about Flock’s widespread surveillance network and the inherent dangers.

In Berkeley, CA, a confidential memo from city attorneys to Berkeley’s city council, police accountability board, city manager, police chief, and interim director of police accountability was leaked just before the city council was set to vote on renewing the town's contract, purchasing more surveillance tools, and expanding their network to plug into private cameras. (All told, the expansion would cost $2 million.) The city attorneys cited many concerns with Flock's AI-powered surveillance tools, ultimately concluding that the “technology carries inherent legal risks that cannot be entirely mitigated.” They stated, “we cannot ensure Flock will abide by its contractual obligations,” and indicated that Flock may not have the technical ability to implement some of the safeguards requested by the city, among other legal concerns.

Speaking of legal concerns, three residents in San Jose, CA have filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the city, arguing that Flock cameras (474 cameras for only 178 square miles!) violate the Fourth Amendment with their warrantless tracking. The plaintiffs are asking for data to be deleted within 24 hours and for the AI-powered surveillance system in the city to be declared unconstitutional. In the suit, The Institute for Justice (who is representing the plaintiffs) reported that, in the second half of 2025, the cameras were searched an average of more than 15,000 times per day. The plaintiffs allege that abuse of Flock’s system "is unfortunately all too common.”

An example of such abuse is currently under investigation in Milwaukee, WI. The Milwaukee Police Department is investigating alleged employee misuse of the Flock database for the second time this calendar year. (Three months ago, a MPD employee was investigated for searching the Flock camera data over 170 times to track their ex.) Nevertheless, the Milwaukee Police Department still stated that the AI-powered license plate cameras are helpful for solving crimes when used correctly. Members of the community who oppose the cameras think that this event underscores the dangers of these tools. We’re inclined to agree.

Back at the end of March, Flock finally removed remaining cameras from Evanston, IL after months of dispute. (For context: The city cancelled their contract in August 2025. Flock challenged the termination and reinstalled the cameras unilaterally. The city responded by covering the remaining cameras in garbage bags because they could not confirm that the cameras were truly off.) The final update in this saga is an interesting read because it includes email chains between the city and Flock representatives which were obtained via Freedom of Information Act Inquiries.

Wonderfully, contract cancellations abound! Dayton, OH is indefinitely suspending its use of Flock cameras in order to perform an internal review. The Dayton Police Department found that "a network sharing feature had been enabled, allowing data to be accessed more broadly than intended," including 7,100 requests which cited immigration. This is not the first case of a city's sharing settings being different than intended. (See here and here).

The El Cerrito city council voted not to renew its contract with Flock Safety. While El Cerrito's mayor was pro-Flock, the Mayor Pro Tem Rebecca Saltzman (a city council member) expressed concerns about federal agencies accessing the data and about widespread AI-surveillance networks within the context of the Trump administration's attacks on democracy and human rights. Saltzman aptly noted, “The law has been changing constantly, we are losing more rights every week. Trump and the Supreme Court could change the law and require Flock turn over the data tomorrow.” The El Cerrito police department provided data endorsing positive effects of the license plate reader cameras, but, nevertheless, the council was split and ultimately voted 3-2 against renewing the contract. 

Appleton, WI also announced that they were ending their contract with Flock. Mayor Jake Woodford’s statement is worth reading in full:

After careful consideration, taking into account the feedback from our community and our own concerns, we are beginning the process of ending our use of Flock Safety's system in the City of Appleton. Automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology has proven instrumental in solving cases, recovering stolen property, and locating missing people and we believe that if an alternative option is identified, it is an important capability to maintain for our community. That being said, concerns about the integrity of Flock's underlying system have eroded our trust.

The Appleton Police Department has long instituted strong internal controls over use of the product and data and has enhanced its policies to protect the public in recent months. However, such rigorous standards cannot be verified beyond the boundaries of our jurisdiction. Examples of illegitimate use of Flock data by personnel in other departments with access to the system reinforce accountability concerns that are not under the City of Appleton's control as a customer.

Recent events in a neighboring community have also raised questions about the accuracy of information Flock Safety provides to its customers. Regardless of the specific details, we hold ourselves to the highest standard in matters involving the public's personal data. [Links added for context]

This week also brought some regulation and education updates. Washington state just passed Senate Bill 6002, which provides safeguards for license plate cameras, such as limiting their uses (“police can only use the readers when investigating felonies or gross misdemeanors, looking for stolen vehicles or those registered to people with arrest warrants and searching for missing or endangered people, with some exceptions.”), data sharing (“the data can’t be shared except in court proceedings,”) and data retention (data “will need to be deleted after 21 days, unless it’s needed for police evidence”). 

The ACLU of Massachusetts just published information differentiating between speed cameras and AI-powered license plate readers. This is a helpful one to reference when you’re discussing Flock with folks concerned about run-of-the-mill traffic safety! 

Finally, there’s still time to boost the call for transparency regarding Home Depot’s use of Flock cameras in advance of their annual shareholder meeting on 5/21. If you missed this news in our prior What the Flock?! installment, full context and suggested actions to take can be found here. 

Mass 50501 continues our work at the municipal and state levels to remove Flock cameras from our communities and people are paying attention! If you are here, you’ve likely already learned a little bit about the dangers of these AI-powered mass surveillance tools. Things are changing fast and it can be tough to keep up with all the news. We’ll continue to post blogs about Flock (check our articles here). In this space, you’ll find quick info from recent Flock news nationwide. This information could be helpful in removing cameras from your city or town! As always, if you’re interested in getting more involved, email us at flockoff@mass50501.org and join us in Discord!

---

Enjoyed this article? Get updates on the movement, volunteer opportunities, and more by clicking below.

What the Flock?! May 1, 2026

This week, Oshkosh City Council in WI unanimously reversed their decision to renew their Flock contract only 24 hours after voting to renew it. Why this sudden change of heart? The police chief was given information about the cameras that directly contradicted a statement made by a Flock representative the day before. 

The Nation reported on the proliferation of AI-powered surveillance cameras and nationwide attempts to remove them. The author likened Flock’s network to a modern panopticon. This article provides a balanced view of our surveillance situation. It celebrates the incredible progress that has been made against Flock by seasoned activists and regular people alike. (The author makes a point to call out the “parents and teachers and scientists and retirees” who have spoken up in their communities.) It also details the many obstacles that have yet to be tackled. Combatting AI-powered surveillance tools in our communities might at times feel like playing a frustrating game of Whack-a-Mole; this article is a nice infusion of realistic optimism.

Have I Been Flocked reported on Flock’s oft self-touted transparency portal and what appears to be—from Flock emails to police departments—intentional limitations or introduction of hoops people must jump through in order to access data via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Flock’s transparency portal and FOIA requests in general can be difficult for a layperson to navigate successfully. Thankfully, crowd-sourced records of Flock information continue to pop up. Kansas Watch has created an ALPR Abuse Library, which is “a publicly maintained, editorially reviewed index of news articles documenting abuses, misuses, and civil liberties concerns related to Automated License Plate Readers—with a focus on Flock Safety deployments.” 

A Colorado man has ended up with his license plate incorrectly attached to a warrant he has no connection with due to a “data entry issue involving Colorado license plates, which use both the letter O and the numeral zero.” Because of this “issue,” Flock cameras create an alert every time Kyle Dausman’s truck passes by. He has been pulled over twice, and, although he is innocent, the problem has still not been corrected. His local police department has silenced their alerts, but other agencies could still act on the alert, leaving Dausman feeling unsafe driving his truck for fear of getting pulled over. He ominously stated,

"All I know is I'm in the system now. And there's really no easy way to get out of the system once you're in it."

Other examples of Flock cameras making people less safe are not hard to find. The Institute for Justice reviewed media reports and found that police officers have misused license plate reader data in order to stalk romantic interests. There have been at least 14 cases since 2021 (with most being more recent), but the article notes that this is likely an underrepresentation because not all police misconduct gets widely reported (or even detected). Horrifyingly, the review showed that most of the known incidents “came to light only after victims reported the officers’ behavior to the police,” which underscores the conclusion that others have come to before: Flock Safety’s purported safeguards are insufficient to truly protect us and our data.

The Surveillance Accountability Act (HR 8470) was introduced to the House of Representatives on April 23rd. The bill “would require government entities to obtain a warrant from a magistrate upon probable cause before conducting any search that significantly impinges on a person's privacy or security.” The bill specifically references “license plate images, vehicle metadata, or vehicle movement patterns obtained through automated license plate readers or similar systems” as needing a warrant “if the person associated with the collected identifiers did not express informed and voluntary consent.” This bill could eventually lead to regulation at the federal level, though—as many of us learned in grade school— it may take a while.

Mass 50501 continues our work at the municipal and state levels to remove Flock cameras from our communities and people are paying attention! If you are here, you’ve likely already learned a little bit about the dangers of these AI-powered mass surveillance tools. Things are changing fast and it can be tough to keep up with all the news. We’ll continue to post blogs about Flock (check our articles here). In this space, you’ll find quick info from recent Flock news nationwide. This information could be helpful in removing cameras from your city or town! As always, if you’re interested in getting more involved, email us at flockoff@mass50501.org and join us in Discord!

---

Enjoyed this article? Get updates on the movement, volunteer opportunities, and more by clicking below.

April 24, 2026

---

Good news: the city of Bloomington, IL decided not to renew their contract with Flock after the public and city council members voiced concerns! The mayor cited issues with privacy, transparency, accountability, and public trust. Each cancellation reinforces the power of resident feedback to municipalities; this is working! For more information about how to talk to your local officials (including email and call scripts), check out our action page. Send it to a friend. There is clearly power in numbers at the local level!

And now, on to Virginia, where there are several recent happenings. For some background context, in October 2024, two residents in Norfolk, VA sued the city alleging that Flock’s ALPR cameras represented warrantless surveillance that infringed on residents’ fourth amendment rights. See another update on the case from September 2025. Unfortunately, in January 2026, a federal judge ruled that the cameras weren’t yet an invasion of privacy. Back to present time: the residents are appealing the judge’s decision. This week, several organizations filed amicus briefs in support of the appeal, including The Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. The amicus briefs state (among many arguments) that Flock’s systems expose the “privacies of life,” allow police departments and federal agencies to monitor people’s activities in real-time without a warrant, “perpetuate discriminatory and potentially unconstitutional predictive policing practices,” “provide the government with unprecedented powers of surveillance that upset traditional expectations of privacy,” and “undercut democracy.” 

Also in Virginia, investigative journalists previously submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for Flock information from various police departments in the state. They found that the fees were inconsistent and sometimes excessive. While some departments provided the information for free, others charged thousands of dollars, with one quote coming in at just over $73K.They argue that the absence of a fee cap prevents ordinary people from understanding how the ALPR systems are actually used.

And finally, a nationwide chain has been called out for their partnership with Flock. Back in August 2025, 404 Media reported that Home Depot and Lowe's were sharing data from their parking lot Flock cameras with law enforcement. In advance of Home Depot’s annual shareholder’s meeting (coming upon May 21st), two Home Depot shareholders filed a proposal asking the company’s board of directors to produce a report “assessing risks to customers’ data privacy rights arising from the company’s sharing of sensitive customer data with third parties,” such as via the Flock cameras in their parking lots. The proposal goes on to explain possible financial and legal difficulties that may result from such data sharing, including data breaches and conflicts with evolving state privacy laws, as well as cites the company’s reputational risk from “frequent immigration enforcement raids” near stores. The proposal explicitly describes the problems inherent in a Flock contract, stating that “dependence on vendor-managed and provided surveillance networks and audit reports, without independent verification,” may “hinder detection of unauthorized access or misuse.” Basically, this boils down to: we can’t trust Flock to audit themselves nor protect customer data. (We previously reported on Flock’s abysmal track record with respect to cybersecurity.) The board of directors is recommending that shareholders vote against the proposal, alleging that sufficient oversight and auditing already take place. We wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment and urge stakeholders to vote for the proposal.  

If you’re a shareholder, attend the meeting and make your voice heard! If you’re not, please spread the word! You can read the proposal and the board’s response here. Stay tuned for more on this topic!

---

---

Enjoyed this article? Get updates on the movement, volunteer opportunities, and more by clicking below.

April 10, 2026

---

The Guardian recently provided a broad recap of data sharing and privacy concerns with Flock that have led some communities to reconsider or cancel their contracts. The Dutchtown Community Improvement District in St. Louis, MO recently cancelled their Flock contracts, citing concerns about data sharing with ICE. While Flock Safety continually reassures the public that they don’t share information with ICE, 404 Media found that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission police made dozens of searches with “immigration” as the stated search term (per a January audit), proving that ICE retains side-door access to Flock data from access points that many police departments likely wouldn’t ever consider as problematic. (Fish and Wildlife police?! Really?) 404 Media also reported that a motorcyclist in GA was issued a traffic ticket that read “CAPTURED ON FLOCK CAMERA 31 MM 1 HOLDING PHONE IN LEFT HAND.” This incident highlights two major problems: 1) Flock cameras capture more information beyond license plate images (as is often reported by Flock and municipalities to assuage concerns about privacy) and 2) the data captured by ALPRs can be used in any way with limited oversight.

If you want to learn more about Flock’s disastrous record, check out Benn Jordan’s comments at his city council meeting in February. See also a reddit post where a resident from Corona, CA shared how he is working to get rid of Flock in his community, including a link to his statements at a city council meeting. His statements are worth listening to. He mentions how Flock Safety’s data collection goes well beyond simple license plate surveillance. He also brought up the wider societal context: Flock Safety integrates with Palantir, whose CEO Alex Karp recently stated that AI technology “disrupts humanities-trained—largely Democratic—voters, and makes their economic power less. And increases the economic power of vocationally trained, working-class, often male, working-class voters.” Yikes.

---

---

Enjoyed this article? Get updates on the movement, volunteer opportunities, and more by clicking below.

Introducing What the Flock?!

---

Photo by Mass 50501 Volunteer.

---

Mass 50501 continues our work at the municipal and state levels to remove Flock cameras from our communities and people are paying attention! Things are changing fast and it can be tough to keep up with all the news. We’ll continue to post blogs about Flock (check our previous articles here). In our new feature, What the Flock?!, we’ll provide you with quick info from Flock news nationwide. This information could be helpful in removing cameras from your city or town! As always, if you’re interested in getting more involved, email us at flockoff@mass50501.org and join us in Discord! Here’s our first news round-up:

In February, NPR gave a broad overview of Flock’s many problems, including data sharing across state lines and with federal agencies; Flock CEO Garrett Langley’s branding of opposition efforts as “coordinated attacks” from "the same activist groups who want to defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness;” and communities that have cancelled or are working to cancel their Flock contracts. A March TechSpot article similarly reported on the controversy surrounding Flock. Have I Been Flocked reported on troubling changes to Flock’s contract terms. If you want to hear about problems from some experts, the researchers at 404 Media did a Reddit AMA about Flock and the state of surveillance in the US. A family in Illinois was blocked from enrolling in their local school district (despite owning a home in the district) because an ALPR system tracked their vehicle as being parked out of district for a period of time over the summer. And for some local reporting: The Lowell Sun wrote negatively about Flock Safety due to cameras in Tewksbury, Lowell, and Billerica. If YouTube is more your thing, check out Louis Rossmann’s reporting (independent electronics technician, YouTuber, and consumer rights activist). 

Now for the good news: a commissioner in Camden County, MO motioned to enforce an established ordinance banning ALPRs on the county’s roads. While he was outvoted 2-1, we applaud his efforts! Contracts have been paused or cancelled in Dunwoody, GA; San Jose, CA; Dane County, WI (after some shady practices by Flock); and our very own Attleboro, MA! Notice—most of these contracts were cancelled by City Council vote, which is why talking to your municipal leaders is extremely important. Louis Rossman has a video detailing a tool to alert you when AI-surveillance is on a meeting agenda in your community! 

More specific good news for Massachusetts: MA House Bill H.3755, legislation that would impose meaningful statewide LPR guardrails (data retention and sharing limits), just advanced out of the Transportation Committee and now awaits action in the House Ways and Means Committee! Reach out to your House representative and let them know how important this legislation is. The next step is to make sure the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee knows that MA voters care about passing this bill. See our Action page for how to contact your representative and for message templates.

And finally, here are two resources to help you learn more about this issue and take further action: Codeberg’s Deflock your City toolkit and Get the Flock Out of Here database.

---

---

Enjoyed this article? Get updates on the movement, volunteer opportunities, and more by clicking below.