Flock cameras privacy backlash reaches Capitol Hill

The Flock cameras privacy backlash has moved from local meetings to Congress, where Rep. Thomas Massie says he plans legislation aimed at agencies that use automated license plate readers. For residents and taxpayers, the fight is about how much tracking power local police should get, and whether federal dollars should support it.

Massie, a Kentucky Republican, said in a Saturday post on X that he will sponsor a bill to withhold federal money from municipalities and police departments that deploy Flock cameras and similar systems to monitor law-abiding people. The proposal comes as local governments across the country reconsider contracts with Flock Safety after privacy objections from residents and civil liberties groups.

What are Flock cameras and why are people opposing them?

Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company founded in 2017, sells internet-connected cameras that photograph passing vehicles and read license plates. The systems can also identify vehicle traits such as make, model, color, decals, roof racks and other visible details, according to descriptions of the technology.

Law enforcement agencies that use the system can search license plate data during investigations, get alerts when a vehicle tied to a case passes a camera, recover stolen vehicles and help find missing people. Flock says its cameras do not use facial recognition and that data is typically kept for 30 days unless local law sets a different retention period.

Critics say the problem is scale. Automated license plate readers create searchable records of where vehicles have been seen, which can reveal patterns about a person’s movements even when that person has not been accused of a crime.

The Institute for Justice reported more than two dozen cases nationwide in which officers resigned or were arrested after allegedly using automated license plate reader systems to stalk current or former romantic partners. In Milwaukee, prosecutors charged an officer in February with using the system to track a romantic partner and that person’s former partner, according to reporting cited by CNN. In July, authorities arrested an internal affairs detective who had investigated that case, alleging he also used Flock to track people for personal reasons.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has raised broader concerns about police searches of license plate databases around protests, including the No Kings protests in 2025. The group also reported that Texas deputies queried Flock data during an abortion investigation that authorities initially described as a missing-person case.

Local fights are spreading

Public opposition has shown up in city forums, street protests and direct action against the cameras. The Guardian identified at least 33 incidents across 23 states in June and July in which activists spray-painted, taped over, disabled or destroyed Flock cameras. Online communities have also shared camera maps, avoidance tips and ways to obstruct the devices, while some people face criminal charges after allegedly destroying multiple cameras.

In St. Petersburg, Florida, 77-year-old Carl Gunn has protested alone beneath Flock cameras by holding a sign that blocks their view, according to Creative Loafing Tampa Bay. In Fresno, California, residents urged officials at a community forum to remove the cameras, while police defended the program and said it had helped with homicide and shooting investigations, according to ABC30.

Some police agencies are reconsidering the technology too. ABC7 reported that the Los Angeles Police Department suspended its partnership with Flock over concerns about privacy, data sharing, security and contract terms.

Flock CEO Garrett Langley has said the company takes privacy objections seriously. He told ABC7 that many people change their view once they understand the cameras take pictures of cars rather than use facial recognition. He also recently apologized after referring to anti-surveillance activists as “terrorists.”

This story draws on original reporting from Decrypt.