The Aftermath of a Town Losing Its Flock
From Florida to Washington state, local governments nationwide are severing ties with Flock, the company behind the contentious AI-powered license plate readers, following widespread public backlash. However, terminating these contracts doesn’t guarantee the immediate removal of the cameras or the deletion of the data they’ve already collected.
As state and local authorities work to scale back their surveillance practices, questions linger about Flock’s handling of previously gathered data. Each jurisdiction’s agreement varies, but many allow Flock to retain data long after collection. “If they decide to terminate, what happens to the data, and how long can it be accessed? That question seems to remain unanswered,” noted Saira Hussain, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has examined numerous municipal contracts with Flock.
The opposition to Flock has grown significantly, transcending political lines. Established in 2017, Flock marketed its cameras as a discreet means to bolster public safety, even prompting some cities to offer grants for homeowners associations interested in installing them. The company has rapidly expanded, deploying over 120,000 cameras across the United States.
This swift growth, coupled with troubling reports of misuse of Flock’s surveillance capabilities, has sparked a fresh wave of resistance, with Flock becoming synonymous with privacy invasion. Activists in both large cities and small towns have called on local governments to terminate their contracts, raising alarms about privacy, harassment, and mass surveillance. Local officials have cited public pressure, along with Flock’s data-sharing and retention policies, as key factors in their decisions to end these agreements.
In Sheboygan, Wisconsin, city lawmakers unanimously voted to cancel their Flock contract after discovering that the company allegedly attempted to sell anonymized data back to the city’s public works department. Meanwhile, the mayor of Stevens Point not only ended the contract but also covered the ten cameras scattered throughout the city. “We really have no way of auditing where the Flock data goes once it’s collected,” Mayor Mike Wiza stated on a local radio show. “Our community is not comfortable using these cameras without assurances that it’s being used in a manner we have authorized.” (Flock asserts that it does not sell consumer data.)
Local leaders across the nation have expressed feeling misled about the potential uses of Flock data, with some admitting they were unaware of how extensively third parties could access it. In Bridgewater, Virginia, the town council covered its Flock cameras after voting to cancel the contract. Despite having a population of fewer than 7,000, data collected in Bridgewater was reportedly searched 7 million times by law enforcement within a year due to the town’s information-sharing agreement with Flock.
The EFF, which has taken legal action against the city of San Jose, California, over its use of Flock cameras, argues that these information-sharing agreements infringe upon Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. “Through these searches, police can identify patterns of where people live and work, where they drop off their kids, who they associate with, and where they seek medical care,” Hussain explained. “This is a mass surveillance technology designed to track people’s movements.”
The backlash against Flock gained momentum from reports of egregious abuses, including instances of law enforcement using Flock to monitor ex-partners. In response to these concerns, Flock has introduced new safeguards, such as requiring case codes for all searches and implementing an Audit Assistance feature to flag “abnormal” queries.
“This is a clear step to prevent abuse,” Flock CEO Garrett Langley stated. “I acknowledged that we got this wrong and agreed to make it a requirement.” The company has also reduced its standard data retention period from 30 days to seven, although jurisdictions can opt to extend this timeframe. Agencies using Flock can also restrict the types of information shared with other entities, allowing for more control over data access.
However, privacy advocates argue that Flock’s reforms fall short. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is also suing San Jose alongside the EFF, criticized the changes as being more about managing public relations than addressing the significant harms caused by Flock’s products.
Concerns remain about the potential for misuse of the system, such as when sheriff’s deputies in Texas used Flock to track a woman suspected of violating the state’s abortion ban, labeling the queries as a search for a missing person. Flock has repeatedly stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not have access to its cameras. However, local agencies that have partnered with federal authorities under 287(g) agreements can use Flock for immigration enforcement, and many do. Public records have revealed that Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission employs Flock for ICE arrests and to monitor its critics. While Florida’s Department of Transportation has banned Flock cameras from state highways, law enforcement can still access city and county-level cameras, as well as those on private property. Retailers and homeowners associations have also installed Flock cameras, prompting activists to call on beauty retailer Ulta to terminate its contracts with the company.
Privacy advocates emphasize that simply ending contracts with Flock won’t halt mass surveillance. Some cities that have cut ties with Flock, like South Pasadena, California, and Durango, Colorado, are now exploring alternative options. The backlash against Flock has reportedly benefited Axon, a company known for its Tasers and body-worn cameras. Hussain points out that Axon’s system is arguably more integrated than Flock’s. “Axon has additional technologies that complement their automated license plate readers, including data from body-worn cameras, allowing for a more comprehensive surveillance system,” she said. “Switching to another vendor won’t solve the mass surveillance issue; the only real solution is to stop relying on this technology altogether.”
