Flock Safety’s surveillance network draws privacy backlash across US
Flock Safety’s reported 130,000-camera network is expanding as officials and privacy advocates question warrantless access, misuse and oversight.
Flock Safety’s automated licence-plate camera network is facing growing political and public opposition in the United States, as concerns mount over privacy, warrantless tracking and the use of surveillance data.
The New Yorker reports that Flock has about 130,000 cameras across every US state except Alaska, with contracts covering roughly 40 per cent of US law-enforcement agencies. The cameras record vehicle number plates, make, model and colour, and the article says police can access the information without a warrant or judicial approval, although practices may vary by jurisdiction.
Founder Garrett Langley presents the technology as a trade-off between privacy and public safety. Flock developed its first cameras after vehicle thefts in Langley’s Atlanta neighbourhood in 2017, later expanding through partnerships with police departments. The company and law-enforcement agencies have cited missing-persons investigations and the tracking of a Brown University mass shooter as examples of the system’s value.
Critics have raised allegations of officers using Flock data to track former partners, relatives and other individuals. The article also reports that a Texas sheriff’s deputy used the system in an abortion-related investigation, while municipal police departments helped US immigration authorities access Flock data. Those claims have not been presented as judicially established findings in the supplied material.
Political resistance has emerged even in conservative states. Texas Governor Greg Abbott reportedly froze state-agency spending on Flock cameras, while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis revoked permits for some highway licence-plate readers and ordered their removal. Officials in Indiana, Kansas and Tennessee have also supported restrictions.
The anti-surveillance project DeFlock has mapped Flock cameras and provided legal and community resources. Its efforts reflect a broader dispute over the Fourth Amendment, public surveillance and the limits of private technology companies’ role in collecting information about people’s movements.
