U.S. cities dump Flock Safety cameras as privacy backlash surges

At least ten local governments and police departments across the United States have moved since this summer to curb, restrict, or end their use of Flock Safety surveillance technology. The backlash tracks a broader public skepticism toward large-scale surveillance technology, driven by documented cases of misuse, data-sharing concerns, and the perception that citizens had no say in massive procurement contracts.

What is Flock Safety?

Founded in 2017, Flock Safety sells license plate readers, drones, and gunshot-detecting microphones that police use to solve crimes. More than 100,000 of its cameras are in use nationwide, mounted on traffic lights, street lamps, and strategic intersections. The company reported $16.3 billion in revenue in the first half of 2026 — 14 times the same period a year earlier — placing it among the fastest-growing surveillance startups in history.

Flock cameras are part of an Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) ecosystem that continuously monitors traffic on public roads, storing millions of images per city and creating a permanent digital record of where every vehicle has been. The data is shared among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and can also be accessed by other agencies under certain agreements.

What is happening right now?

Over the past three months, six municipalities have ended their contracts with Flock Safety: Monroe, Ohio; Newburgh, New York; Richmond, Virginia; Hopkinton and New Bedford, Massachusetts; and Lansing, Michigan. Police in East Bridgewater and Grafton, Massachusetts, have announced plans to stop using the cameras.

In League City, Texas, residents voted on November 3 to ban police use of Flock's license plate readers. The city began removing the hardware the following day. The League City case is emblematic: for the first time, citizens exercised their referendum right to directly oppose surveillance technology.

Renton, Washington, ended its two-year Flock contract on October 21, after a year of intense public debate. The city's 24 cameras had been switched off since May, with the license plate readers covered in black plastic. The city paid about $80,000 per year for the service — money that did not generate revenue, unlike school zone and red light cameras.

In Taylor, Texas, eight cameras have been disabled and will be removed in the coming days. Police Chief Joseph Chacon cited data security concerns and the cameras' limited usefulness in solving crimes. "We may revisit the use of automated license plate readers in the future should data security concerns be addressed," he said.

Cases of misuse feed the fire

Several recent incidents have contributed to the erosion of public trust. In September, an East Texas officer was sentenced to five years in prison for using Flock Safety to stalk his ex-girlfriend and her family — a case that exposed the potential for personal and abusive use of the technology.

In Newburgh, New York, Police Chief Brandon Rola discovered that outside agencies had searched the city's data "thousands of times" between October 2024 and January 2026 without specific authorization from the municipality. That discovery directly led to the decision to cut the contract.

The city of Newburgh's resolution specifically noted there had been "proven instances of Flock Safety infrastructure being used by federal agents for information purposes even without specific authorizations from the contracting locality."

State and federal legislative action

Beyond municipal decisions, state governments and Congress are entering the battle. In September, Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the Flock-Off Act bill to bar the use of federal funds to purchase Flock-style surveillance systems. In October, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Ban Flock Act to end "the rise of AI-powered surveillance cameras."

At the state level, Florida barred automated license plate readers on state highways during the summer, while Texas ordered all state agencies to pause funding for Flock cameras — though the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) continues to use its vast surveillance network.

What Flock says about the movement

Flock Safety maintains that its technology helps police solve violent crimes and find missing persons, emphasizing that client agencies own their data and choose sharing permissions. The company has already cut approximately 270 jobs as cities walk away.

The Flock CEO now publicly defends the technology at conferences and interviews, arguing that the cameras save lives and that the company has not "fired" abusive customers. According to the CEO, the company remains willing to work with municipalities to resolve specific privacy and governance concerns.

What to watch

The movement against Flock Safety is part of a broader pushback against the rapid adoption of smart infrastructure technology — including data centers, facial recognition, and autonomous surveillance systems. The same pattern of fights over data access, oversight, and consent is shaping how cities evaluate not just license plate readers, but the entire ecosystem of algorithmic surveillance.

Not all cities are dumping Flock. Cleveland, Ohio, voted this summer to extend its contract with Flock, though it has restricted immigration-related searches and cut off a regional intelligence center's access. Cleveland officials say they are reviewing alternative vendor proposals even as they continue using Flock for active investigations.

What's striking is that Flock cameras are physically visible — mounted on street corners and traffic lights. Unlike algorithmic surveillance hidden in data centers, these cameras are right there on the sidewalk, making them impossible to ignore. When citizens start questioning who is watching their streets, will the next surveillance technology promising "safety" also lose its popular support? Or are we witnessing a structural shift in the relationship between cities and algorithmic surveillance?

Sources: TechCrunch, Technopolis News, The Seattle Times

✓ Independent sources cross-checked and verified before publishing