Drive through almost any American city or town today and there's a good chance you've already been photographed, logged, and filed away in a government-accessible database — without ever knowing it happened. You didn't do anything wrong. You didn't commit a crime. You just drove past a pole.
That pole probably had a Flock Safety camera on it.
Over the past few years, these automated license plate readers (ALPRs) have spread into more than 6,000 communities across the country, mounted on highways, tucked into neighborhood entrances, and bolted outside your local hardware store. They photograph every vehicle that passes — plate number, make, model, color, bumper stickers, roof racks, even minor identifying damage — and feed it into a searchable, interconnected national database. Flock, the company behind most of this infrastructure, has been valued at $7.5 billion and now operates in every state except Alaska.
The pitch to city councils is always the same: these cameras stop car thieves, find missing children, and solve crimes that would otherwise go cold. And to be fair, that pitch has worked. Flock's own research claims its cameras play a role in solving roughly one in ten reported crimes in the U.S.
But a mounting body of evidence — from federal lawsuits to a U.S. senator's own reversal — suggests the real story is much bigger, and much more troubling, than "smart traffic camera helps catch bad guys."
Everyone Is a Suspect, All the Time
The foundational problem with ALPR networks isn't that they occasionally catch criminals. It's that they photograph everyone, all the time, regardless of whether there's any reason to suspect wrongdoing.
A study from the University of Michigan's Science, Technology, and Public Policy program put it plainly: even when these systems work exactly as intended, the overwhelming majority of the images they capture have nothing to do with criminal activity. You are not a suspect. Your neighbor is not a suspect. The teenager driving to soccer practice is not a suspect. But all of you are being recorded, logged, and stored anyway — just in case.
That distinction matters constitutionally. American privacy law has traditionally rested on the idea that the government needs a warrant, or at least individualized suspicion, before it tracks your movements. Blanket, always-on surveillance of the entire public inverts that principle entirely: instead of investigating people because they're suspected of something, the system logs everyone first and asks questions later.
This is precisely the argument now working its way through federal courts. The Institute for Justice is currently suing on behalf of residents in Norfolk, Virginia, arguing that persistent, warrantless tracking of ordinary people's movements violates both the U.S. and Virginia constitutions — and a judge has already allowed the case to proceed. The ACLU has filed a Fourth Circuit amicus brief making a similar argument: that ALPR networks give the government a scale of surveillance power that upsets any reasonable expectation of privacy Americans have long assumed they had while driving on public roads.
When the System Gets It Wrong
Mass surveillance doesn't just raise abstract constitutional questions — it produces real, documented harm when it fails.
In New Mexico, police mistakenly treated ordinary drivers as potentially violent suspects and held them at gunpoint after Flock's cameras misread their license plates. In Ohio, a man was wrongfully identified as a human trafficking suspect based on the system's data and was later sued over the misidentification (the suit was eventually dismissed, but the wrongful accusation still happened). These aren't edge cases dreamed up by critics — they're the predictable result of automating identification at massive scale and trusting the output.
And the errors are only part of the problem. Once your movements are logged into a searchable national network, that data doesn't stay neatly contained to the crime it was supposedly collected to solve. Law enforcement agencies across the country can search each other's camera networks — meaning a police department in one state can query camera data collected in a completely different state, often with minimal oversight over why they're searching.
This is exactly what triggered one of the most damning moments in Flock's recent history. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden had initially praised Flock for agreeing to new privacy protections meant to stop out-of-state and federal agencies from using the network to pursue abortion- and immigration-related enforcement against Oregon residents. Months later, after further oversight, Wyden reversed course entirely — concluding that abuse of the system was effectively inevitable, and that Flock had made clear it wasn't taking responsibility for preventing it. He now recommends that communities that installed Flock cameras reconsider that decision altogether.
Reporting has also tied Flock's network to U.S. immigration enforcement, with federal authorities reportedly gaining access to license plate data collected by local police departments for entirely unrelated purposes — raising the uncomfortable question of what, exactly, your city council agreed to when it approved that "public safety" contract.
The Backlash Is Real — and Growing
None of this has gone unnoticed by the public.
Communities across the country have started pushing back, and in a growing number of cases, winning. Framingham, Massachusetts declined to renew its Flock contract. Bay City commissioners voted against moving forward with one at all. In Lapeer County, sustained public opposition led the sheriff to withdraw his own request to sign a contract. The ACLU has documented a pattern of Flock making misleading claims to city councils and police departments about what its systems can actually do — including, in one case, appearing to dodge a direct question from a city council member about whether the system builds movement "heat maps" that reveal where a specific vehicle has traveled over time.
Some of the backlash has gotten physical. Reporting from journalist Brian Merchant's Blood in the Machine project has documented a wave of activists in cities from San Diego to Virginia deliberately disabling or destroying Flock cameras, frustrated that legal and political channels weren't moving fast enough to stop what they see as an unaccountable surveillance buildout happening in their own neighborhoods.
Under pressure, Flock announced new safeguards just this month: requiring police to attach a case number to every search, automatically flagging unusual search activity, and shortening the default data retention window from 30 days down to seven. The ACLU's response was blunt — many of the changes, they argued, are just repackaged versions of safeguards Flock has claimed to have before, and don't address the core problem: that the system was built to enable mass, warrantless tracking in the first place, and no amount of after-the-fact search auditing changes that basic design.
Why This Should Matter to You — Even If You've Never Been Investigated
It's tempting to think none of this applies to you personally. You're not a criminal. You have nothing to hide. Why should it matter if a camera logs your commute?
But privacy protections were never really about hiding wrongdoing — they're about maintaining a basic boundary between the individual and the state. A government that can reconstruct your daily movements, your regular stops, who you visit and when, without ever needing to justify why, has power over you that has nothing to do with whether you've broken any law. That power can be misused — to track people seeking reproductive healthcare across state lines, to locate immigrants regardless of the original justification for the camera network, to stalk an ex-partner using access meant for solving property crimes. The infrastructure doesn't distinguish between legitimate use and abuse. It just watches, and waits for someone to ask it a question.
What You Can Actually Do
This isn't a fight you're powerless in. A remarkable amount of the pushback that's actually worked so far has come from ordinary residents showing up to city council meetings and asking hard questions before a contract gets signed.
- Find out if your city has a Flock contract already, and if so, who can access it and under what conditions.
- Show up when new surveillance contracts are on the agenda. Several of the wins above happened specifically because residents organized and testified before a vote.
- Push for real oversight, not just policy promises — audit logs, warrant requirements, and hard limits on data sharing across jurisdictions.
- Support legislation that requires a warrant before location data like this can be accessed, mirroring the standard the Supreme Court has already applied to other forms of digital location tracking.
- Stay informed. Organizations like the ACLU and the Institute for Justice are actively tracking which communities have these systems and which ones are fighting back.
The Other Side of the Argument
It's worth being upfront that this isn't a one-sided issue, even if the trajectory of recent news has leaned hard toward the critics. Police departments and Flock itself argue that these cameras genuinely do solve crimes that would otherwise go unsolved — recovering stolen vehicles, locating missing children, and generating leads in violent crime investigations that departments say they simply couldn't produce without this technology. Rural and under-resourced police departments in particular argue that ALPR networks let them do more with fewer officers. Supporters also point out that license plates are, by law, already public information visible to anyone on a public road — the cameras, in their view, just automate something anyone could already legally observe.
Critics respond that "we could technically observe this too" doesn't hold up once you're talking about a permanent, searchable, cross-jurisdiction record of everyone's movements rather than a passing glance — and that Flock's own effectiveness statistics have been criticized, including by outside researchers, as overstated. But it's a genuine, ongoing debate, and reasonable people — including elected officials who started out supportive — have landed in very different places on it.
What's not really in dispute is that this technology is expanding fast, mostly without public input, and that the rules governing how it's used are still being written in real time — often after the fact, in response to public backlash rather than ahead of it. That's a conversation worth having in every community before the cameras go up, not after.
Sources referenced: ABC News, the ACLU, TechCrunch, Senator Ron Wyden's office, and Brian Merchant's Blood in the Machine.
Related gear
If this is the first time you've thought seriously about ALPR networks, our Ghost Protocol field guide covers exactly how these systems work and what to actually do about them. And if you'd rather just make the point without saying a word: Don't Flock Me tee · Don't Flock Me stickers.
0 comments