Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Flock Safety

2025-09-26T00:49:52Z

2600:4040:B2D9:1F00:0:0:0:33: Linked to ALPR page

{{CompanyCargo
|Founded=2017
|Industry=Surveillance Technology
|Type=Private
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com
|Description=Flock safety is a surveillance Technology company which utilizes legal loopholes to implement mass surveillance across the United States.
|Logo=Flock-Saftey-logo.jpeg}}Flock Safety is the creator and operator of the [[Flock License Plate Readers|Flock cameras]]. Flock cameras have many functionalities including but not limited to: Scanning vehicle license plates; logging make, model, color, and "distinguishing features" of vehicles, gunshot detection and, facial recognition. They operate a network of 40,000<ref>{{Cite web |last=Polcyn |first=Bryan |date=24 Oct 2023 |title=Mapping Flock cameras, police 'secrecy' varies by department |url=https://www.fox6now.com/news/mapping-flock-cameras-police-secrecy-department |website=Fox 6 Milwaukee}}</ref> devices across the United States in 5,000<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 May 2025 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution}}</ref> communities. They often operate under private contracts such as with HOA's and commercial contracts, and public contracts with local law enforcement. Flock Safety justifies the legality of its mass surveillance systems on the basis of the legal principles that individuals have "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces." Since their surveillance systems are deployed on roads that are considered public courts have generally held that their mass surveillance does not violate privacy rights. The company "processes over 20 billion scans of vehicles per month"<ref>{{Cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding?utm_source=chatgpt.com |archive-date=13 Mar 2025}}</ref> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name=":0" />. Several sources estimate total funding in the range of $650M to $950M+<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/?utm_source=chatgpt.com}}</ref>. Flock has claimed to have surpassed $300 million in ARR<ref name=":0" /> as of 2025 and cited 70% year over year growth. They are estimated to have over 1,000 employees.

==Consumer-impact summary==

===Public Privacy===
Privacy violations are many and are obvious, the continuous tracking of the American public, the permanent surveillance archive, the logging of "distinguishing features on vehicles", timestamps, and the searchable database all, while indeed in conjunction with the notion that privacy cannot be assumed in public spaces, violate a person's right to privacy. Traditional observation in public spaces, which doesn't violate Fourth Amendment Rights, is fundamentally different from the generation of a permanent searchable archive that is created with the flock cameras. Critics argue that the large-scale data aggregation transforms the fleeting public exposure into a detailed log of personal behavior, which can expose religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliations, medical conditions, and other highly personal aspects of identity, all traditionally protected by the Fourth Amendment. The system also offers no public opt out options forcing all users of the road to have their locations tracked and logged, raising more risks of misuse, profiling, and long term monitoring. U.S. courts have traditionally held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy however some rulings do emphasize that this principle does not strip a citizen of their constitutional rights. In rulings such as Carpenter v. United States (2018)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Common Wealth v. Bell 2024 |url=https://www.richmondbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/900-CRIMINAL-Cameras-and-the-Constitution-Materials.pdf}}</ref> Judge Jamilah D. LeCruise stated that "A person doesn't surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into a public space"<ref>{{Cite web |title=CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf}}</ref> reflecting the ongoing public sentiment over the use of automated indefinite surveillance records. Furthermore, the use of flock cameras by law enforcement is a direct violations of a person's Fourth Amendment rights as the data that the police department can access are things which would traditionally need a warrant to access.

===Business Model===
Flock Safety operates a "surveillance as a service" model where the company owns, deploys, and maintains its cameras and sensor infrastructure then charges municipalities, law enforcement, HOAs, business and private parties recurring fees for the ability to access the surveillance network and data. This model monetizes and subsidizes mass surveillance of the American public partially with tax dollars. Unfortunately they have learned to take advantage of the American system and have lined their pockets with $300,000,000+<ref name=":0" /> per year from the mass surveillance of the American public and the erosion of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. Furthermore their infrastructure could very easily lead to the degradation of First Amendment rights (Rights to free speech) and Ninth Amendment rights (rights not explicitly stated in the constitution are still retained by the people).

==Incidents==
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Incident One (''Sep 18 2025'')===
{{Main|Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says}}
A new lawsuit in Norfolk, Virginia shows just how invasive Flock Safety’s cameras are: 176 of them tracked a veteran’s car more than 500 times in a two months and his co-plaintiff’s nearly 850 times in the same time span. The city is paying Flock $2.2 million in taxpayer money for this system which works against the tax payer. This same system which costs Norfolk $2.2 Million quietly logs each persons movements without warrants or probable suspicion. Flock markets itself as a “safety network,” but civil rights groups warn it’s really building a massive, centralized surveillance database that police can tap into. It is a mass spying network that is used on ordinary people who’ve done nothing wrong, all to fuel Flock’s growing business.

==See also==

#[[Flock License Plate Readers]]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Flock license plate readers

2025-09-26T00:48:55Z

2600:4040:B2D9:1F00:0:0:0:33: Linked to main page

{{ProductCargo
|Company=Flock Safety
|ProductLine=Flock Safety Falcon
|ReleaseYear=2017
|InProduction=Yes
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Cameras, Security, Surveillance
|Logo=Flock License plate readers (LPR).png
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
|Description=AI-powered automated license plate reader (ALPR) system that creates "Vehicle Fingerprints" by recording license plates, vehicle characteristics, and movement patterns for law enforcement use without individual consent or warrants.
}}
'''Flock License Plate Readers''' (previously known as '''Flock Safety Falcon'''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/devices/falcon|title=Falcon|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2024-12-06|archive-url=https://archive.ph/UjKM5|archive-date=2024-12-06|url-status=dead}}</ref>), are a network of AI-powered surveillance cameras that record vehicle data for law enforcement agencies. The system operates in over 6,000 communities across 49 U.S. states, performing over 20 billion vehicle scans monthly.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe|title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe|work=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2025-06-01|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

==Consumer impact summary==
====Freedom====
Residents and taxpayers have no mechanism to opt out of [[Flock Safety]]'s surveillance network. The cameras operate 24/7 in public spaces, recording all passing vehicles regardless of consent. They are also placed on private premises like universities, hospitals, businesses, and neighborhood associations, which often share this data with law enforcement.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2024-06-19 |title=FedEx’s Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This data can later be integrated into predictive police platforms like Palantir.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rettberg |first=Jill Walker |title=Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World |date=September 11, 2023 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons. |year=2023 |location=Google Books |pages=45-46 |language=English}}</ref>

Unlike traditional security cameras that may be avoided by choosing different routes, Flock's expanding network of over 40,000 cameras makes avoidance increasingly difficult.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://deflock.me/|title=Find Nearby ALPRs|work=DeFlock|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250728224453/https://deflock.me/|archive-date=2025-07-28|url-status=live}}</ref> The system uses AI to create ''"Vehicle Fingerprints"'' that identify vehicles by characteristics beyond license plates, including make, model, color, aftermarket parts, window stickers, and roof racks.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious|title=Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are "Suspicious"|work=American Civil Liberties Union|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

====Privacy====
While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics|title=Privacy & Ethics|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p|archive-date=2025-08-23|url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras could proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/|title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed|work=Institute for Justice|date=2024-02-01|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Data collected includes location history that can reveal sensitive information about medical visits, religious attendance, political activities, and personal associations. While Flock states data is deleted after 30 days, contracts grant them ''"perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license"'' to use anonymized data indefinitely.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions|title=Terms and Conditions|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> The system shares data across a network of over 4,800 law enforcement agencies nationally.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/|title=Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional|work=404 Media|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

====="Anonymized data"=====
While Flock defines anonymized data as customer data that is ''"permanently stripped of identifying details and any potential personally identifiable information"'' and is rendered so that a person or entity ''"can no longer be identified directly or indirectly,"'' this definition includes information such as vehicle make, model, color, location patterns, and other non–license-plate attributes.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-07-22 |title=Terms and Conditions |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/legal/terms-and-conditions |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Flock Safety}}</ref>

Privacy researchers caution that mobility datasets labeled as "anonymized" can still be re-identified. A 2013 MIT study found that just four spatio-temporal points uniquely identified 95% of individuals in an anonymized location dataset.<ref>{{cite journal |last=de Montjoye |first=Y.-A. |last2=Hidalgo |first2=C. A. |last3=Verleysen |first3=M. |last4=Blondel |first4=V. D. |year=2013 |title=Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376 |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=3 |pages=1376 |doi=10.1038/srep01376 |access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> Civil liberties organizations such as the EFF and the ACLU note that when detailed travel histories are retained, even without license plates, it is often possible for this data to be linked back to individuals when combined with other data sources.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-06-01 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2024 |title=Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are "Suspicious" |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |access-date=2025-08-23 |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

====Business model====
Flock operates on a subscription model charging municipalities and law enforcement agencies $2,500 per camera annually plus installation costs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://campbellca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=279|title=How much does a Flock Safety camera cost?|work=City of Campbell|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> Private businesses including Home Depot, Lowe's, and FedEx also deploy cameras, sharing data with law enforcement.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/|title=Home Depot and Lowe's Share Data From Hundreds of AI Cameras With Cops|first=Jason|last=Koebler|date=2025-08-06|work=404Media|access-date=2025-08-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250823135847/https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/|archive-date=2025-08-23|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Contracts include automatic renewal clauses and limit municipal oversight capabilities, with cities unable to audit system operations or control how other agencies use shared data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/flock_1.pdf|title=How to Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department's Use of Flock's Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers|work=ACLU|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

====Market control====
Flock Safety has rapidly expanded to become a dominant force in automated license plate recognition, operating in 49 states with over 40,000 cameras deployed. The company's network effect creates pressure for additional jurisdictions to join, as law enforcement effectiveness depends on network coverage. Several states have begun restricting access following privacy violations, with California, Illinois, and New York limiting data sharing after immigration and abortion-related tracking incidents.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.michaelrcronin.com/post/flock-blocks-ice-from-license-plate-reader-access-in-several-states|title='Flock' Blocks ICE from License Plate Reader Access in Several States|work=Yes You Can Go|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Premise of a "license plate camera"===

=====Vehicle Fingerprint technology=====
These are often referred to as license plate cameras, which creates a fundamental misunderstanding of the product's capabilities.

While marketed as "License Plate Readers," Flock's cameras use what the company calls "''Vehicle Fingerprint"'' technology that tracks vehicles using characteristics beyond just license plates. According to Flock's own marketing materials, the system can identify vehicles even when license plates cannot be captured, advertised as turning ''"images into actionable evidence — no plate required."''<ref>{{Cite web |title=LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/lpr-cameras |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>
[[File:No plate, still works.png|alt=Taken from Flock's marketing materials on their website. Their cameras are advertised as not needing a license plate to work due to vehicle fingerprinting technology; demonstrating that this is far more than just a "license plate camera" |thumb|Taken from Flock's marketing materials on their website. Their cameras are advertised as not needing a license plate to work due to vehicle fingerprinting technology; demonstrating that this is far more than just a "license plate camera" <ref>{{Cite web |title=LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers}}</ref>]]
The system catalogs vehicles based on numerous distinguishing features including make, model, color, bumper stickers, dents, damage patterns, roof racks, aftermarket modifications such as wheels or spoilers, window stickers, and even mismatching paint colors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harwell |first=Drew |date=2021-10-22 |title=Flock license plate readers spark controversy in Golden, Colo. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/crime-suburbs-license-plate-readers/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety ALPR |url=https://www.campbellca.gov/1260/Flock-Safety-ALPR |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=City of Campbell}}</ref> Flock claims this capability is ''"unique among ALPR systems"'' & allows law enforcement to search for vehicles based on these characteristics even without a visible license plate.

This technology changes the nature of the surveillance from license plate reading to comprehensive vehicle tracking. A person could still be tracked by the unique combination of their vehicle's physical characteristics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that these ''"vehicle fingerprints"'' could flag vehicles based on political bumper stickers, revealing ''"information on the political or social views of the driver,"'' or economic indicators like rust or damage, potentially "endangering anyone who might not feel the need (or have the income required) to keep their car in perfect shape."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-09-14 |title=Things to Know Before Your Neighborhood Installs an Automated License Plate Reader |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/flock-license-plate-reader-homeowners-association-safe-problems |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

Privacy advocates note that this expanded tracking capability makes the term ''"license plate reader"'' misleading, as Flock systems create detailed vehicle profiles that persist even without readable plates. It turns any distinguishing feature of a vehicle into a tracking identifier.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stop Flock |url=https://www.stopflock.com/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Stop Flock}}</ref>

==Other surveillance products==

=====Flock Aerodome "Drone as First Responder"=====
Flock Safety also offers an all-in-one drone product which integrates into the Flock AI Surveillance Network as well as local law enforcement's Computer Aided Dispatch software. The Drones are outfitted with live video cameras, thermal imaging, night vision, and potentially other sensors, and are capable of self-launching and self-navigating.<sup>[https://www.flocksafety.com/products/flock-aerodome]</sup> Flock Safety cites following potential use-cases: <blockquote>Drones are stationed across your service area, ready to respond instantly... Deploy from the dock to geo-coordinates of 911 calls, LPR hits, gunshot detection, or manually by the operator... Control multiple drones and docks with a single operator, providing continuous air support for the entire city.</blockquote>Rahul Sidhu, VP of Aviation at Flock Safety, works directly with FAA officials and actively lobbies Congress to gain favorable legislation which seeks to expand Flock Safety's surveillance network and further diminish citizen privacy. [https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-commends-legislators-on-introduction-of-drone-act-of-2025][https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/jon-mcbride-joins-flock-safety][https://www.police1.com/drones/calif-pd-secures-first-faa-waiver-to-operate-dfr-program-at-400-feet-citywide]

==Incidents==

===Illegal camera data sharing by California law enforcement agencies (2015-)===
California passed Senate Bill 34<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb34|title=Senate Bill 34|access-date=2025-08-27}}</ref> in 2015 to limit how California police departments can use and share data collected from these cameras with other state's and federal law enforcement agencies. These limits have been found to be violated on several occasions with little enforcement or consequences for the misusing departments<ref>|Cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/07/23/california-police-sharing-flock-license-plate-data/|access-date=2025-08-27}}</ref>. Departments even potentially complying with the law have had their cameras used in searches that explicitly violate it by other law enforcement within the state due to how data sharing works within Flock's system, for example a CHP search labeled "ICE case".

===False positive incidents (2025)===

======Held at gunpoint:======
In Española, New Mexico, 21-year-old Jaclynn Gonzales and her 12-year-old sister were held at gunpoint and handcuffed after Flock's system mistook a "2" for a "7" on their license plate, falsely flagging their vehicle as stolen.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>{{Cite news |date=2023-09-28 |title=License plate cover leads to traffic stop mishap |url=https://www.koat.com/article/espanola-police-license-plate-stolen-cover-traffic-stop/45361740}}<nowiki></ref></nowiki><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025 |title=Flock Safety: Eroding Your Privacy & Keeping You Safe with Surveillance |url=https://redact.dev/blog/flock-safety-lpr-privacy-surveillance/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Redact}}</ref>

===Law enforcement stalking incidents (2022-2025)===
Many documented cases demonstrate abuse of Flock's surveillance capabilities by law enforcement officers:

======Cops stalking their ex:======
In October 2022, Kechi, Kansas Police Lieutenant Victor Heiar was arrested and later pleaded guilty to computer crimes and stalking after using Flock cameras 228 times over four months to track his estranged wife's movements.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kwch.com/2022/10/31/kechi-police-lieutenant-arrested-using-police-technology-stalk-wife/|title=Kechi police lieutenant arrested for using police technology to stalk wife|work=KWCH|date=2022-10-31|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

In a separate Kansas incident, Sedgwick Police Chief Lee Nygaard accessed Flock data 164 times to track his ex-girlfriend before resigning after admitting to the misuse.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-police-chief-used-flock-093300946.html|title=Kansas police chief used Flock license plate cameras 164 times to track ex-girlfriend|work=Yahoo News|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Abortion & immigration tracking (2025)===
In May 2025, Johnson County, Texas sheriff's deputies used Flock's network to track a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. They were conducting searches across multiple states including those where abortion is legal. The incident led Illinois officials to investigate and subsequently block 47+ out-of-state agencies from accessing Illinois ALPR data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/national/2025/06/12/illinois-officials-investigate-data-shared-with-texas-sheriff-seeking-woman-who-had-abortion/|title=Illinois officials investigate data shared with Texas sheriff seeking woman who had abortion|work=The Dallas Morning News|date=2025-06-12|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

404 Media revealed over 4,000 searches by local and state police for federal immigration enforcement purposes, despite Flock having no formal ICE contract.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/|title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows|work=404 Media|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> A DEA agent was found using an Illinois police officer's credentials to conduct unauthorized immigration searches.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://unraveledpress.com/a-dea-agent-used-an-illinois-police-officers-flock-license-plate-reader-password-for-unauthorized-immigration-enforcement-searches/|title=DEA agent used Illinois cop's Flock license plate reader password for immigration enforcement searches|work=Unraveled Press|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Illegal Camera Installations (2024-2025)===
In South Carolina, Flock installed over 200 cameras without authorization, leading to a statewide moratorium on new installations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ferrara |first=David |date=2024-03-11 |title=A company installed license plate cameras without permission. SC agency wants clear rules |url=https://www.postandcourier.com/news/alpr-cameras-south-carolina-flock-safety-license-plate-readers/article_787a262a-dbd2-11ee-a901-634acead588b.html |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=The Post and Courier}}</ref>

In Illinois, a Flock representative allegedly threatened a Department of Transportation official with police pressure when questioned about permit applications.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Uprise RI Staff |date=2024-10-23 |title=As Flock Surveillance Cameras Proliferate in Rhode Island, Lawsuit Challenges Their Legality |url=https://upriseri.com/as-flock-surveillance-cameras-proliferate-in-rhode-island-lawsuit-challenges-their-legality/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=UPRISE RI}}</ref>

===City rejections and terminations (2025)===
Multiple cities have rejected or terminated Flock contracts following privacy concerns and effectiveness issues:

======0.2% effectiveness rate, low arrests:======
Austin, Texas terminated its contract in July 2025 after an audit revealed "systematic compliance failures" and only 165 arrests from 113 million license plate scans (0.2% effectiveness rate).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/flock-ceo-responds-to-austin-backlash-as-city-contract-nears-expiration|title=Flock CEO responds to Austin backlash as city contract nears expiration|work=CBS Austin|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Denver City Council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension in May 2025 following revelations of 1,400+ ICE-related searches in Colorado data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://denverite.com/2025/05/05/denver-rejects-flock-camera-license-plate-readers/|title=Denver rejects $666,000 extension for license-plate surveillance cameras after backlash|work=Denverite|date=2025-05-05|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

San Marcos, Texas voted 5-2 to deny camera expansion after discovering no required audits had been conducted since 2022.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/san-marcos-city-council-votes-to-deny-flock-camera-expansion-after-hours-of-heated-debate|title=San Marcos City Council votes to deny flock camera expansion after hours of heated debate|work=CBS Austin|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Oak Park, Illinois terminated their contract entirely following the Illinois investigation into illegal data sharing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/07/oak-park-terminates-flock-license-plate-reader-contract/|title=Oak Park terminates Flock license plate reader contract|work=Wednesday Journal|date=2025-08-07|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Constitutional challenges (2024-ongoing)===
In February 2024, Federal Judge Mark Davis denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a Fourth Amendment challenge filed by the Institute for Justice ( IJ.org ) to the city's use of 172 Flock cameras, comparing the case to Carpenter v. United States regarding warrantless location tracking. Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot stated that the cameras were placed so it would be "''difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera."''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://insideinvestigator.org/flock-camera-lawsuit-can-move-forward/|title=Flock camera lawsuit can move forward|work=Connecticut Inside Investigator|date=2024|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> View the ongoing case details [https://ij.org/case/norfolk-virginia-camera-surveillance/ here.]

===Security vulnerabilities (2024-2025)===
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency identified 7 critical vulnerabilities in Motorola ALPR systems similar to Flock's, including hardcoded passwords & unencrypted data storage.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/new-alpr-vulnerabilities-prove-mass-surveillance-public-safety-threat|title=New ALPR Vulnerabilities Prove Mass Surveillance Is a Public Safety Threat|work=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2024-06-18|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Lawsuits show that Flock uses hacked data from breaches to develop a product that allows customers to “jump from LPR [license plate reader] to person, “allowing users to much more easily identify and track the movements of specific people around the country without a warrant or court order."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cox |first=Joseph |date=2025-05-14 |title=License Plate Reader Company Flock Is Building a Massive People Lookup Tool, Leak Shows |url=https://www.404media.co/license-plate-reader-company-flock-is-building-a-massive-people-lookup-tool-leak-shows/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=404 Media}}</ref>

==Camera locations==
The locations of many Flock Cameras have been mapped by the OpenStreetMap project. A viewer of the locations of these cameras is located here: https://deflock.me/map

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock live map of active ALPRs]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRS movement in United States]
*[https://plateprivacy.com/ The Plate Privacy Project]
*[https://eyesonflock.com/ Eyes On Flock]
*[https://wiki.alprwatch.org/index.php/Main_Page ALPR Watch Wiki]

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]