US Cities Pull Flock Surveillance Cameras Over Privacy Concerns

At least ten local governments and police departments in the United States have limited, restricted or eliminated the use of Flock Safety surveillance technology since summer 2026 due to concerns about privacy, data sharing and public procurement. The company defends that its cameras solve serious crimes and maintains it does not sell data nor has a contract with ICE.

The technology has been on streets for years without anyone giving it a second look. Now, however, municipalities have decided that the camera on the corner pole is not a minor detail. Flock Safety, founded in **2017**, sells surveillance software—license plate readers, drones and perimeter computing devices with microphones to capture gunshots and other sounds—and has more than **100,000 cameras** operating in the United States. Since summer 2026, at least ten local governments and police departments have backed out, totally or partially.

The list of cancellations is concrete. In the last three months, **Monroe** (Ohio), **Newburgh** (New York), **Richmond** (Virginia), **Hopkinton** (Massachusetts), **New Bedford** (Massachusetts) and **Lansing** (Michigan) have rescinded their contracts. Police forces in East Bridgewater and Grafton, both in Massachusetts, announced they are stopping the use of the cameras. And this same week, residents of **League City** (Texas) voted against allowing their police department to continue using license plate readers: the cameras are being removed.

## The map of withdrawals: from Asheville to South Windsor

It is not a phenomenon of a single state or political sign. In **Asheville** (North Carolina), the police lost access after the city voted to rescind the contract in August. The Sheriff's Office of **El Paso** County (Colorado) announced in September that it was stopping the use of the cameras; its sheriff, **Joseph Roybal**, defended the decision in a statement: "We have the tools, training and experience necessary to locate and arrest incivil without depending on Flock cameras."

The pattern repeats in small towns. In **South Windsor** (Connecticut), according to local reports, the cameras were activated last year without public notice or vote; in October, the municipality voted to remove them. Lack of information is a recurring complaint: many cities adopted Flock just a few years ago and neighbors did not know it was being installed. **Adam Schwartz**, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, points out that police departments usually hire independently, with little oversight from city councils.

## Privacy, contracts and a heavy immigration use

Concerns range from privacy and how data is shared—and with whom—to public procurement processes. The case of **Ithaca** (New York) is illustrative: in March it approved a resolution to rescind its contract stating there were "proven cases of federal agents using Flock Safety infrastructure for intelligence purposes even without specific authorizations from the contracting locality." The city referred to reports according to which, "whether intentionally or by negligence," Flock would have allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (**ICE**) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (**ATF**) to use results from state and local database queries to investigate and prosecute immigrants nationwide.

Flock denies that reading. In a statement to TechCrunch, the company affirmed that "each Flock client owns their data and controls who shares it and how it is used," and added: "Flock does not sell data nor has a contract with ICE." It also maintains that its tools serve to solve serious crimes, locate suspects and find missing persons, and that removing them represents "a setback in terms of public safety." In August, the company announced it reduces the default data storage period for new clients from **30 to 7 days**, and that agencies need a case code before searching the database.

Documented misuse has fueled the debate. In August, a police officer in **Brentwood** (Missouri) was accused of using Flock cameras to harass his ex-vvife during their divorce. In September, an officer in East Texas was sentenced to prison for using the same technology to harass his ex-girlfriend and her family. These are individual cases, but they weigh heavily in the public conversation about who watches the watchers.

## Florida, Texas and the political pulse in Washington

The reaction does not stay within municipal boundaries. At the state level, **Florida** banned license plate readers on state highways and **Texas** suspended state funding for Flock. In September, President **Donald Trump** said he liked the technology "for its utility to law enforcement," although a Reuters poll that same month revealed that more Americans dislike it than like it.

There are initiatives underway in Congress. Representative **Thomas Massie**, Republican from Kentucky, introduced the so-called Flock-Off Act to prohibit the use of federal funds in the purchase of "Flock-style surveillance systems." In October, Senator **Bernie Sanders** (I-Vt.), Representative **Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** (D-N.Y.) and Senator **Jeff Merkley** (D-Ore.) introduced the Ban Flock Act to put an end to the "rise of AI-powered surveillance cameras." The political climate accompanies: Democrats control Congress.

Not everything is withdrawal. **Cleveland** (Ohio) voted this summer in favor of extending its contract, but restricted searches related to immigration and limited access to the database only to local police, leaving out the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center, which initially had access. The city explained that the cameras "are used and are necessary for investigative purposes" and that it is reviewing responses to a request for proposals sent to other providers with similar technology.

## A tangible camera versus invisible data sales

**Tatiana Rice**, senior director of US legislation at The Future of Privacy Forum, is not surprised by the reaction. Flock is a target of criticism because drivers see the sensors and cameras while driving; data centers, she adds, have become the materialization of resentment against new technologies. "A camera at the end of the street is something tangible, unlike the daily exchange and sale of personal data online," she told TechCrunch.

That visible character partly explains why rejection organizes here before other fronts of artificial intelligence. The debate about Flock resembles that of data centers: facilities that arrive before residents understand what they imply. "Grassroots activists across the country have been demanding that city councils exercise their public procurement power to refuse to pay for automated license plate recognition systems," says Schwartz, adding that "many city councils are listening."

Rice summarizes the tension: "These tools can offer real benefits for public safety, but communities are clearly interested in ensuring those benefits are not obtained at the cost of their civil liberties." Surveillance technology will remain a hot political issue. And it is worth remembering that decisions on public contracts and personal data affect concrete rights: if you are concerned about how your data is treated, consult a professional or the relevant data protection authority.