Cities are dropping Flock's surveillance cameras at a record pace

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,275   +64
Staff
Bottom line: More local governments are ending contracts with Flock Safety as criticism of the company's AI-powered camera network spreads across the country. The pullback reflects mounting concern that Flock's fast-growing, searchable camera network is expanding surveillance faster than many local communities are willing to accept.

Secure Justice, an Oakland-based anti-surveillance group, says 214 cities and counties have dropped Flock since 2021. Ninety jurisdictions ended contracts in August alone, a fourfold increase from July, according to the group's latest update. That works out to about three cancellations a day during the month.

The cities range from Lansing, Michigan, to Pflugerville, Texas. Their concerns include the cost of the cameras, the sharing of data among agencies, the reach of Flock's surveillance network, and reports of police officers misusing the system.

Flock sells automated license plate reader cameras and related software to police departments, local governments, and private users. Its system allows agencies to search data collected by cameras in other participating communities, making the size of the network central to its value.

Brian Hofer, executive director of Secure Justice, said the growing number of cancellations could weaken the reach of Flock's shared camera network. A smaller network gives agencies fewer cameras and fewer locations to search.

"Looking at that image, it's gone parabolic!" Hofer said. "When you see that now 165 [cancellations] are just in the first almost eight months of this year... At that speed, if it goes another year, we're talking serious money. That number is going to get huge, fast."

Flock said the loss of contracts has been outweighed by new business. Courtney Terlecki, a company spokesperson, said new city partnerships have outpaced nonrenewals by about 10 to one this year. The company did not disclose how many new customers it has added in 2026, but said its products are used by more than 5,000 communities.

"So far in 2026, new city partnerships have outpaced nonrenewals by approximately 10 to one," Terlecki said. "That does not mean every community will make the same decision, and we understand that public safety technology deserves thoughtful public discussion and community engagement."

The debate is no longer limited to traditional license plate readers. Critics say AI is expanding what the systems can do and making it easier to search large pools of camera data.

"Maybe in the past it didn't feel like every red light cam really meant a pair of eyes was watching you, but with AI, that's increasingly becoming the reality," Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology's Security and Surveillance Project, said in an email to Ars.

He said Flock allows searches involving keywords and people, while other local camera networks are adding real-time facial recognition. He also pointed to Border Patrol's use of AI to analyze license plate reader data for driving patterns.

"And we're already seeing how AI can morph ALPRs [automated license plate reader] into a mass surveillance dragnet," Laperruque said. "Flock lets its cameras be searched for keywords and people, cities are incorporating real-time facial recognition into camera networks, Border Patrol is using AI to scan ALPR data for driving patterns [and] pulling people over whenever the AI deems their driving 'suspicious.'"

Flock has made policy changes amid the criticism. CEO Garrett Langley recently said the company would reduce its default data retention period from 30 days to seven days. The company also updated its terms of use to prohibit customers from using Flock services to mislead, harass, or stalk someone, or otherwise violate a person's legal rights.

The changes have not ended the political backlash. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said last week that he is investigating Flock's collection, retention, and dissemination of data from its AI surveillance cameras. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also criticized the technology after two Florida police officers were arrested for allegedly misusing Flock.

Catherine Crump, a UC Berkeley law professor, said reported uses of the system have widened the concern beyond privacy advocates. She cited reports that a Texas sheriff's office used the network to search for a woman who had obtained an abortion, and that federal agents used the cameras to identify attendees at a gun show.

"It definitely does not help that this is yet another Silicon Valley product that no one asked for that threatens to reshape people's lives," Crump said.

Permalink to story:

 
Cities are dropping Flock's surveillance cameras at a record pace
Flock says new city contracts still outpace cancellations by roughly 10 to one, however
This is the most ridiculous title-subtitle combo I've seen lately.
So cities are dropping Flock at a record pace, and picking Flock at a 10x greater super-record pace.
Makes perfect sense.

It would be interesting to follow this topic and see what would be the average period of getting Flock (or one of their competitors) back in the places where they dropped it.
 
Stupid people be stupid. These cameras are amazing and should be used to their fullest potential. Just cuz some dipshits use it to spy on their ex's doesn't mean everyone does and shouldn't ruin it for the countless that benefit from their usage.
 
The problem with these systems was never just a camera reading your license plate. It's connecting thousands of cameras into one searchable database and then quietly expanding what can be queried.
....and the only ones that will ever care about this are those doing things they shouldn't be. Stop doing shady/illegal sheet and being seen on a camera will mean nothing, because no one will ever even know what you're doing, because they won't care about what you are doing as you're a law-abiding citizen who is just going about their life.
 
....and the only ones that will ever care about this are those doing things they shouldn't be. Stop doing shady/illegal sheet and being seen on a camera will mean nothing, because no one will ever even know what you're doing, because they won't care about what you are doing as you're a law-abiding citizen who is just going about their life.

"When someone declares "people will die" as a justification for curtailing liberty, the correct response is "what are you suggesting - that liberty isn't worth dying for? That those who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms made the wrong choice?" —OldMugwump, 2013

"There is a very thin fragile line between 'for your security' and 'for your enslavement'" —Unknown

We no longer know the meaning of freedom. We have traded away everything to a false prophet. We refuse to see that belonging to a government is a fate far worse than any terrorist can reap; than any madman can sow.

The word of a terrorist has no power over us. The government's word is law.

In the name of security we will lose our security. In addition to the terrorist we will have the relentless uncompromising gaze of the government.

The power of the people is born from its freedom, and it is the people who must be the guardians of that power. It is from our freedom that we draw the authority to force our government to abide its boundaries. Through the guise of security we are slowly allowing our government to relinquish that authority, and ultimately, the government will know no boundaries.

Once we allow our freedoms to categorically run dry, we, as a people, will no longer have the authority to stand up to our government.

______________

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
—Thomas Jefferson
 
Looking forward to watching this company get swept into the dustbin of history.

Liberty was NEVER safe. There is an inherent danger to being free. And companies that chose to profit from the removal of liberty deserve all the trouble they are due.
 
“Land of the free”, with cameras up your arse. More like the land to get screwed for free, with zero privacy, just like in China.

Jeff Epstein would have loved it, as intrusive surveillance was his thing. The USA makes him a villain, while promoting his methods of violating privacy of others.
 
Last edited:
Once we allow our freedoms to categorically run dry, we, as a people, will no longer have the authority to stand up to our government.

Freedom's don't run dry for those that aren't doing anything wrong. Watch me every single ****ing day if you want, but you'll be the one bored oya watching it, as I am just living my life when you should be living yours.
 
“Land of the free”, with cameras up your arse. More like the land to get screwed for free, with zero privacy, just like in China.

Actually, it is like this in England and no one is complaining about it there, and you know why, cuz there is no crime there, which is what these cameras are meant for. Get a clue before responding next time please.
 
I find it strange how vulnerable these cameras are to vandalism and alike. Looks to be cheap cameras, no protection boxes, etc. I sometimes think this is to collect data on people's reaction.
 
I started watching the deflock.org site about a month ago. The number of cities rejecting
flock, was less than 100. Now, it's over 150. I know two or three cities in my state have canceled
contracts & request they be removed. One, even placed black garbage bags over the cameras to
ensure they won't work until they are removed. https://deflock.org/
 
Flock CEOs already made their money. Even if they are dropped from the contract, these guys can retire without working anymore.
 
These cameras help keep my daughters and grandchildren safe
And how do you know some officer that happens to also be a stalker or rapist isn't using that to track them? The problem is there is not enough safeguards in place to protect people from officers and government abusing the system.
 
I started watching the deflock.org site about a month ago. The number of cities rejecting
flock, was less than 100. Now, it's over 150. I know two or three cities in my state have canceled
contracts & request they be removed. One, even placed black garbage bags over the cameras to
ensure they won't work until they are removed. https://deflock.org/
The city I live in has been using them for close to 3 years now and the mayor just ordered them to all be removed a few days ago.
 
This was all an object lesson.
"Survey says..... No surveillance state".

Back to spying on people without them knowing folks. awh.

 
I believe the actual issue here is they do violate two constitutional rights (mainly the 4th). Its the same concept as to why geo fencing was outlawed. This isnt much different.

The government couldnt place these cameras as it would be deemed illegal for law enforcement to do so. Thats why there is a 3rd party contracted to do so creates a loophole that law enforcement is getting around.

Then there is the well documented real life cases of abuse happening by law enforcement.

Just because something makes it easy to do something, doesnt mean we have to sacrifice our freedoms. its quite the opposite, we have defined rights to prevent this overreach.

Again, cops couldnt put these cameras up themselves due to the data tracking. Our government is paying a 3rd party to host them and then paying them for the data creating this loophole. They are a violation of our rights.
 
Back