Flock Cameras Face Growing Backlash as Privacy Concerns Reach Capitol Hill

Public opposition to Flock Safety’s automated license plate reader cameras is spreading from city council meetings to Capitol Hill as lawmakers prepare legislation targeting federal funding for agencies that deploy the technology while communities across the country reconsider its use.

The protests come amid mounting evidence that Flock’s technology has been used in ways critics say extend well beyond its stated purpose of investigating crimes and locating missing people.

A recent report by The Institute for Justice identified over two dozen cases nationwide in which officers resigned or were arrested for allegedly using automated license plate reader systems to stalk current or former romantic partners.

In February, Milwaukee prosecutors charged an officer accused of using the system to track a romantic partner and her former partner. In July, an internal affairs detective who investigated that case was arrested after authorities alleged he also used Flock to track people for personal reasons.

Privacy advocates also cite broader uses of the technology. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says agencies searched license plate databases during protests, including the No Kings protests in 2025. That same year, the group reported that Texas deputies queried Flock data during an abortion investigation that authorities initially described as a missing-person case.

Opposition has also moved beyond public meetings. During June and July, activists across the country spray-painted, taped over, disabled and destroyed Flock cameras in protest of automated surveillance. The Guardian identified at least 33 incidents across 23 states. Online communities have shared camera maps, tips for avoiding the devices and methods for obstructing them, while several people now face criminal charges after allegedly destroying multiple cameras.

Founded in 2017, Atlanta-based Flock Safety sells internet-connected license plate reader cameras that automatically photograph passing vehicles, read license plates, and use computer vision to identify characteristics such as a vehicle’s make, model, color, decals, roof racks, and other distinguishing features. Participating law enforcement agencies can search the database during criminal investigations, receive alerts when vehicles linked to cases pass a camera, recover stolen vehicles, and locate missing people.

Flock says its cameras do not use facial recognition and typically retain data for 30 days unless local laws require a different retention period. CEO Garrett Langley said the company takes privacy concerns seriously and believes many critics reconsider their views once they understand how the technology works.

“Once they understand what the technology actually does, not what it might do in 50 years, not what someone thinks it could do, but what it actually does day in and day out, it takes a picture of a car. Most people go, ‘This makes a lot of sense. I want my kids to be safe,'” Langley told ABC7.

In a post on X on Saturday, Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie said that he plans to introduce legislation that would withhold federal funding from municipalities and law enforcement agencies that deploy automated license plate reader systems, including Flock cameras.

The proposal follows a series of disputes over Flock cameras across the United States.

In St. Petersburg, Florida, 77-year-old Carl Gunn has drawn attention by staging solo protests beneath Flock cameras, holding a sign that blocks their view.

“This is just another thing to take our information and to spy on us,” Gunn told news outlet Creative Loafing Tampa Bay. “I have a constitutional right to my privacy. I’m a law-abiding citizen, and I don’t need anyone sticking their nose in my business. And if they do, I’m going to chop it off.”

In Fresno, California, residents packed a community forum to urge city officials to remove Flock cameras, arguing the technology allows broad government surveillance. Police defended the system, saying it helped investigators solve homicide and shooting cases and emphasizing that it does not use facial recognition.

“We have to find a balance between safety and liberty,” Fresno Police Chief Mindy Casto reportedly said.

However, not all law enforcement agencies are on board with using Flock cameras and are re-evaluating their use of the technology. On Thursday, the Los Angeles Police Department suspended its partnership with Flock over concerns involving privacy, data sharing, security, and contract terms. Monroe County, Indiana, also voted to end its contract a year early, despite commissioners acknowledging the cameras had helped solve serious crimes. Earlier in July, Leon County, Florida, delayed funding for additional Flock cameras after residents questioned how the data is collected, stored, and shared.

The scrutiny has prompted a response from the company. Earlier this month, Langley apologized for previously describing anti-Flock activists as a “terroristic organization,” saying the comments were a mistake and that the company has spent more time listening to critics while trying to balance public safety and privacy.

“My comments were a mistake, and I apologize,” he told Forbes. “There are groups today that have real valid criticisms of the business, and I think what’s changed for us is, as we’ve listened to them and heard them out, what we’re trying to do is find this balance. We believe in a world where we can have safety and privacy.”