What the Flock?! June 19, 2026
The good news: several municipalities have recently cancelled their Flock contracts, including Albany, OR; Columbia Heights, MN; and South Portland, ME. Reports from Maine indicate that opposition to these AI-powered surveillance tools is truly a bipartisan effort; we previously reported on the Republican state representative who introduced legislation to ban ALPR systems statewide. As with prior reports of contract cancellations, most cities and towns have made these decisions because of resident feedback. In South Portland, ME, public outcry against Flock was so consistent that the city hosted two workshops to allow citizens ample time to raise their concerns about the cameras. These meetings ultimately led to the contract being cancelled. In Columbia Heights, MN, Mayor Simula praised their local police department, and expressed concern with “other people that have had access.” In Albany, OR, City Councilor Steph Newton expressed that Flock Safety “has not earned residents trust with their data privacy." As public opposition to Flock heats up along with the weather, we expect to see even more cancellations. Keep the pressure on. It’s working.
And now, for some problems: Hugo Parra, a young man in San Diego, CA, was wrongly connected to an attempted carjacking at gunpoint due to Flock camera data. What’s most troubling is that the Flock data actually proved that Parra was five miles away at the time of the crime. How could officers make such a mistake? They didn’t attend to the timestamp of the data and used Flock’s vehicle fingerprint feature to find a similar car (make/model/color), rather than an exact license plate match. When Parra was brought into the police line-up, a witness identified him as the suspect because of his “jacket,” “beard,” and “skin color.” Parra, who is innocent, was wrongly jailed for a month among violent offenders due to these cascading mistakes. He plans to sue the city. ArsTechnica reports, “Parra’s case in San Diego is a powerful example of what can go wrong when cops build supposedly strong cases using less information” prompted by this technology.
A recent op-ed about problems with Flock cited research that cameras "create and reinforce racially biased policing" because they are often located based on the race and class of the area. The author discussed the many issues with this technology and Flock Safety in particular: fourth amendment violations, abuse, vulnerability, and Flock’s lack of transparency.
That same lack of transparency seems to once again be on display as part of—surpise, surprise!—ongoing litigation in California. Per footnote4a, “California requires every ALPR operator to publish a usage-and-privacy policy spelling out what it collects, why, how it keeps that data accurate, and how it secures it. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.51.)” The article further explains, "Flock’s published License Plate Reader Policy (last updated November 2025) lists eight kinds of data: a plate image, a vehicle image, vehicle characteristics like color and make, the plate number and state, and the date, time, and camera location. In court, Flock admits to more than 130 [data points]—and in its settlement proposal it agreed it ‘would not deny that it collects other information, such as bumper stickers and roof racks.’ Flock admits collecting this ALPR information that appears nowhere in its policy." Flock stated that this unspecified data is “wholly irrelevant” to the case in an effort to limit discovery.
Flock’s apparent attempts to obfuscate information continue. KWSO 7NEWS compared some of Flock Safety chief communications officer Josh Thomas’ statements with other Flock statements. For example, Thomas “disputed the characterization that the system tracks people,” instead he argued that “the system captures fixed points in time, not continuous tracking.” However, Flock’s own training materials repeatedly describe the action of “tracking” a vehicle or suspect’s movements. This semantic splitting of hairs is offensive and seems to be par for the course with Flock based on past “misunderstandings.”
How about a slightly different example of Flock’s behavior? IPVM reports that Flock’s “Strategic Relations manager David Clow published a LinkedIn post built around a graphic replicating the MythBusters brand… applied to Flock's legal talking points.” The problem? Flock didn’t have the rights to use any images associated with the MythBusters’ brand. Clow doubled-down and stated that the image was considered a form of parody. But, because he was using the branding to advertise a product, rather than provide a critique or commentary of MythBusters itself, the usage does not qualify as fair use. Clow then deleted his post. IPVM astutely notes that the mis-step “is a small example of a larger pattern: a company that markets itself on legal accountability while applying that standard selectively to itself."
Worryingly, we have more evidence of data misuse and abuse. 404 Media reported more about how Flock’s ALPR database has been abused to stalk people. The article details how Jarmarus Brown, a police officer in Florida, searched for his ex-girlfriend and her parents over several months as part of a broader pattern of abusive control in their relationship. At one point, another officer noticed him searching for his ex’s car in the Flock database and warned him to stop. Brown eventually admitted to his mis-use, stating that, “he would occasionally run her tag through Flock to track her whereabouts” in case she was lying to him. Apparently, this type of behavior was present in their relationship before Flock. While they were dating, he required his ex to remain on FaceTime with him throughout the day, and he once placed an AirTag in her wallet. This case highlights how unrestricted access to such a tool can be dangerous in the wrong hands and how departmental policies can be easily skirted. 404 Media states,
"It is definitely the case that Flock’s audit tools have proven useful in holding police accountable, because journalists, activists, and concerned citizens from around the country have pored through Flock audit logs that they have obtained through public records requests to document abuse. But it is also the case that Flock has strenuously fought against lawsuits and potential regulations that are seeking to require police to get a warrant to use the system. And many cases of abuse have not been detected by police departments themselves but by those private citizens, journalists, and stalking victims who have found patterns of abuse in public records files they have obtained from their local police departments.” (emphasis added)
404 Media also broke the story that Flock allegedly leaked “tons of law enforcement vehicle queries and possible user data,” including “license plate state and numbers, make, model, color, identifiers such as ‘window stickers’ and ‘top rack,’ case number, and more” through routine search engine results pages. But don’t worry. They’re fixing it… we think.
Given all these problems, it’s no wonder that—as ReasonTV put it in their recent YouTube short—people have reached their boiling point. The cracks are showing. Contracts are being cancelled. Residents’ voices are being heard! (Except when they’re not… ugh.) As the Idaho Mountain Express newspaper editorial board stated in their opinion piece,
“It’s not too late to put invasive technology on a short leash crafted of new laws and active public oversight before American freedoms evaporate in a cloud of algorithms.”
Massachusetts residents are attempting to do exactly that. (See: H.3755). In Agawam, MA, "concern about the license plate recognition cameras [had] grown so much that City Council President Anthony Russo… invited a member of the Police Department to the June 15 City Council meetingto answer the council’s questions about the equipment." See more about the meeting here. And in Framingham, MA, residents have been engaged in strong opposition to Flock cameras. Positively, their concerns are being taken seriously. Per a statement on the city’s Transparency and Accountabilitypage, "The Framingham Police Department continues to work collaboratively with the Mayor’s Office and a subcommittee of the City Council to address community concerns regarding the use of Flock Safety cameras. At this time we have not renewed the Flock Safety contract while those concerns are under review. The Framingham Police Department remains committed to balancing public safety needs with transparency, accountability, and the privacy concerns of the community it serves." Go Framingham!!
Enjoyed this article? Get updates on the movement, volunteer opportunities, and more by clicking below.