Flock Safety cameras are becoming increasingly common on roads across the U.S. They may look like ordinary traffic cameras, but they can do much more than record passing vehicles.

The company says its technology gives communities another tool to solve crimes(nieuw venster) while allowing local authorities to control how their data is used. Critics argue that the size of the network creates a form of surveillance(nieuw venster) that is difficult for ordinary people to understand or avoid.

So how do these cameras work, what information do they collect, and what can you do if you’re concerned about them?

Jump to:

What are Flock cameras?

Founded in 2017, Flock Safety has grown from a startup into a company operating more than 80,000 cameras across 49 states. The Atlanta-area company says its systems read 20 billion license plates each month across more than 5,000 communities and 4,800 police departments.

Automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems aren’t new, and Flock isn’t the only company that makes them. Law enforcement agencies have used similar systems for years. What sets this network apart is its scale and the ability to search information across different locations.

When a vehicle passes one of these cameras, the system can capture its license plate(nieuw venster) along with details such as its color, make, model, and direction of travel. Authorized users can then search that information when investigating a crime.

That can be useful when police are looking for a specific vehicle. If a car connected to a crime passes a camera, investigators may be able to use that information to establish where it has been or where it might be going.

The same capability raises a privacy question, though. A vehicle doesn’t have to be connected to a crime to be recorded(nieuw venster). Simply driving along a road monitored by one of these cameras can create a record of that journey.

As more cameras are connected, those individual records can provide a much broader picture of where vehicles travel.

How local authorities and United States Border Patrol abuse flock cameras

Why do Flock cameras raise privacy concerns?

The privacy concern starts with scale.

A single camera recording a car at a particular moment is one thing. A network of cameras capable of recording vehicles across an entire community is something else. When those cameras can be searched across multiple locations, they can potentially reveal patterns in where a vehicle has been and when.

That creates the possibility of innocent people becoming part of a criminal investigation without realizing it.

In Columbine Valley, Colorado, for example, a woman was accused of stealing a package(nieuw venster) based on camera evidence even though she hadn’t committed the theft. The incident illustrates one of the problems with relying on automated systems as investigative tools: a camera can produce a lead, but a lead isn’t necessarily proof.

There are also questions about who can access the information collected by Flock.

Police departments can use the system to investigate crimes, but data sharing between different agencies can make the boundaries less obvious. Mountain View, California, announced that it had discovered federal agencies had accessed data through its Flock system(nieuw venster) without the city’s knowledge. The city subsequently shut down its cameras.

Flock CEO Garrett Langley disputed claims that customers had lost control of their data. He said local customers control the settings that determine how information is shared, while acknowledging that the company’s National Lookup feature had been too easy for some customers to enable.

Flock later said it had changed its systems in states where legislation prevents license plate data from leaving the state.

That raises a broader question for communities using the technology: how much control does a city really have if the system’s capabilities, settings, or access arrangements can change over time?

Can Flock cameras actually help solve crime?

There is a legitimate argument for using Flock cameras.

The company says its technology has helped with criminal investigations across the US and has been used in hundreds of thousands of cases each year. Examples include investigations involving stolen vehicles, missing people and other crimes where identifying a vehicle can give investigators a useful lead.

In some cases, that information could make a real difference. Finding a vehicle associated with a missing child or identifying a suspect’s movements can give police information they might otherwise struggle to obtain.

The question is whether those individual successes demonstrate that widespread deployment of ALPR systems reduces crime overall. That’s harder to establish.

Flock has cited research(nieuw venster) suggesting its technology played a role in a significant proportion of successful criminal investigations. However, some of the research supporting those claims was funded by Flock. One academic researcher who worked on the company’s studies later said, “I personally would have done things much differently.(nieuw venster)“

That doesn’t mean the technology has no value. It means claims about its effectiveness deserve some caution.

There is a difference between saying that a camera helped solve a particular crime and saying that installing thousands of cameras makes a community safer. The first can be demonstrated through individual cases. The second requires broader evidence that accounts for other factors affecting crime.

For residents, that distinction matters when deciding how much surveillance is reasonable in exchange for potential benefits.

flock cameras explained

How secure are Flock cameras?

Security is another concern because Flock cameras collect information that can reveal where vehicles have been.

Researchers have demonstrated vulnerabilities in Flock’s systems. In one case, security researchers were able to access certain cameras in a matter of seconds(nieuw venster). Flock said the incidents involved a configuration problem that it subsequently fixed, and that nearly all of its customers had adopted multi-factor authentication.

Flock has also disputed claims that the cameras deployed on police poles were compromised in the same way.

Technical security isn’t the only issue, though. A system can be protected against outside attackers and still be vulnerable to misuse by people who have legitimate access.

Research into Flock’s audit logs found examples of employees accessing cameras at sensitive locations(nieuw venster), including a children’s gymnastics facility. Police officers have also been caught using license plate reader systems for personal reasons, including tracking romantic partners.

Those incidents illustrate why access controls and audit logs matter. A database containing detailed information about people’s movements can become particularly sensitive when employees or officers can search it without a legitimate reason.

As one of the company’s own arguments acknowledges, misuse by even a small number of people can create serious problems. Langley said, “Anything greater than zero is unacceptable(nieuw venster),” while arguing that cases of abuse are rare compared with the number of people who use the system.

The challenge is deciding what safeguards are appropriate when the consequences of misuse can extend far beyond the person conducting the search.

Can you avoid Flock cameras?

Avoiding Flock cameras is difficult because they operate in public spaces.

You can decide not to use a particular app, close a social media account(nieuw venster), or stop carrying a particular device. You can’t make the same choice about a camera installed along a public road.

Someone trying to avoid Flock surveillance would have to know where cameras are located and change their travel accordingly. Even then, a sufficiently large network can make complete avoidance difficult.

One attempt to do exactly that involved trying to go about a normal week while avoiding detection by Flock cameras. The experiment escalated from simply changing routes to disguises(nieuw venster) and increasingly elaborate attempts to prevent the cameras from identifying the vehicle.

The point isn’t that everyone should start trying to evade roadside cameras. It’s that opting out becomes difficult when surveillance is built into the physical infrastructure around you.

That creates a significant difference between commercial tracking and public surveillance. You may be able to stop using a service that tracks your online activity. Avoiding a camera that sits on a road you need to use is much harder.

How can you find Flock cameras?

If you want to know whether Flock cameras are operating in your area, open-source mapping projects can help.

DeFlock(nieuw venster) allows people to report, verify, and look up the locations of Flock cameras. Mapping projects like this can make the scale of surveillance easier to understand because they put individual camera locations into a local context.

You might know that your city has Flock cameras. But seeing that there are several on your route to work, another near your child’s school, and several more around the shopping center gives you a much clearer picture of how often your vehicle may be captured.

Knowing where cameras are located also gives residents something concrete to ask their local government about.

Who installed them? Which agency operates them? How long is the data retained? Who can search it? Can other agencies access it? What rules govern those searches?

Those questions can be more useful than simply asking whether a city supports or opposes surveillance technology.

Can communities fight Flock?

Residents aren’t completely powerless when a community adopts Flock.

Local governments typically decide whether to enter into contracts with the company, which means residents can raise concerns with city councils, police oversight bodies and other elected officials.

Communities across the country have already debated whether they want Flock cameras operating in their cities. Lynnwood, Washington, voted to end its relationship with Flock(nieuw venster), while opposition to the technology became part of the political debate in Asheville, North Carolina.

The issue has also crossed traditional political lines. Privacy concerns can appeal to people with very different political views, particularly when the discussion focuses on local control, warrantless searches and government access to personal information.

Los Angeles also allowed its Flock contract to lapse(nieuw venster) in July 2026 over data privacy and civil rights concerns. The city said it would stop using footage from its 138 cameras while negotiating with Flock over stronger data controls.

These decisions don’t necessarily mean that every community should remove its cameras. They do demonstrate that adopting surveillance technology isn’t necessarily a permanent decision.

Residents can ask for the terms of their city’s contract, examine local surveillance policies, and find out what restrictions exist around data access and sharing.

Who controls Flock’s surveillance features?

One of the more difficult questions surrounding Flock is what happens after a community has already agreed to install the cameras.

Flock’s CEO has said that police departments and local governments should determine what level of public review is required when new capabilities are introduced. He also said he supports requiring public approval for materially new surveillance capabilities.

The concern is that a city council could approve one type of technology while its capabilities change later through software updates.

That possibility is sometimes referred to as mission creep. A system introduced for one specific purpose can gradually become capable of doing more than residents originally expected.

Flock has introduced additional safeguards(nieuw venster), including an audit assistance tool designed to detect potentially abusive or unusual searches. The company has also said it has changed its systems in states where laws restrict how license plate data can be shared.

The question for communities is therefore larger than whether Flock cameras can help solve crimes.

It is also about who decides how the technology develops, what new capabilities can be introduced, who has access to the information, and what happens when those rules are broken.

For a system capable of recording the movements of ordinary people, those decisions have consequences beyond the police department that operates it.

What can you do about Flock cameras?

You may not be able to avoid every Flock camera you encounter, but you can find out whether your community uses them and how the system is governed.

Start by checking your city or police department’s public records. Look for contracts, surveillance policies, camera locations, data-sharing agreements and information about who can access the system.

You can also ask local representatives specific questions about how long Flock data is retained, which agencies can access it, whether searches are audited, and what approval is required before new surveillance capabilities are introduced.

If you don’t agree with the way your community uses Flock, contact your city council member or other local representatives. Public surveillance policies are ultimately decisions made by communities, and residents have a say in how those systems are used.

Flock cameras may offer police a useful investigative tool. They also create a record of ordinary people’s movements on a scale that can be difficult to opt out of.

Understanding where the cameras are, what information they collect, and who can access that information is a good place to start.