10 Cities Drop Flock Safety Cameras Over Privacy Fears

At least 10 local governments and police departments across the United States have moved since the summer of 2026 to curb, restrict, or end their use of Flock Safety surveillance cameras, according to a TechCrunch report published on November 5. The wave of pushback — driven by privacy concerns, questions about who can access the data, and a series of misuse cases — is turning one of the fastest-growing names in neighborhood surveillance into one of the most contested.

Which cities are dropping Flock?

In the past three months alone, six cities have moved to end their contracts with Flock: Monroe, Ohio; Newburgh, New York; Richmond, Virginia; Hopkinton, Massachusetts; New Bedford, Massachusetts; and Lansing, Michigan. Police in East Bridgewater and Grafton, Massachusetts, have also announced plans to stop using the cameras.

The most striking rebuke came at the ballot box. On November 3, residents of League City, Texas, voted to disable the police department’s Flock license plate readers, with 54 percent of 46,400 voters backing removal. The city operates 55 Flock cameras on public roadways, and Mayor Nick Long has said they will be disabled within 72 hours of the votes being certified — whether that means bagging them or cutting them down.

Other departures stretch back further. Asheville, North Carolina, voted in August to terminate its contract, cutting off police access to the system. In September, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office in Colorado announced it would stop using Flock cameras. Sheriff Joseph Roybal said discontinuing the technology was the right decision for the county, adding that his office has “the tools, training, and experience to locate and apprehend criminals without relying on Flock cameras.”

Even the largest contract on the list did not survive the summer. The Los Angeles Police Department let its Flock contract expire in July, citing serious concerns over civil liberties and privacy.

Why the backlash now?

Flock, founded in 2017, sells automatic license plate readers, drones, and microphone-based devices that detect gunshots and other sounds. The company says more than 100,000 of its cameras are in use nationwide, and that the technology helps police solve crimes, find missing people, and recover stolen cars.

But the same network that makes the cameras effective is what worries critics. The core concern is data sharing: who can query a database of vehicle movements, and under what authorization?

One case captures the issue. In March, Ithaca, New York, passed a resolution to terminate its Flock contract, saying there were “proven instances of Flock Safety infrastructure being used by federal agents for information purposes even without specific authorizations from the contracting locality.” The city said it had reviewed reports that Flock had allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to use query results from its database of state and local license plate data.

Misuse by individual officers has added fuel. In August, an officer in Brentwood, Missouri, was accused of using Flock cameras to stalk his ex-wife during their divorce. In September, an officer from East Texas was sentenced to prison for using Flock to stalk his ex-girlfriend and her family.

Flock disputes the characterization. In a statement to TechCrunch, the company said that “every day, police departments across the country are using Flock technology to solve serious crimes, locate suspects, find missing people, and make a measurable impact on public safety,” and that removing the tool “moves public safety backward.” The company says every customer owns its data and controls who it is shared with, that it does not sell data, and that it does not have a contract with ICE.

The company has also tightened its own rules. In August, Flock said it would shorten the default data retention period for new customers from 30 days to seven, and that agencies now need a case code before they can search the database.

The fight is moving to statehouses and Congress

The backlash is no longer limited to individual city councils. At the state level this summer, Florida barred license plate readers from state highways, while Texas paused state funding for Flock.

In Congress, two bills now target the technology. In September, Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced the Flock-Off Act, which would bar the use of federal money to buy “Flock-style surveillance” and add other safeguards. In October, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced the Ban Flock Act to end what they call “the rise of AI-powered surveillance cameras.”

Public opinion appears to be shifting with them. In September, President Donald Trump said he liked Flock’s technology “because of law enforcement” — even as a Reuters poll that same month found that more Americans dislike the technology than like it.

Tatiana Rice, a senior director for U.S. legislation at the Future of Privacy Forum, told TechCrunch that the backlash reflects “growing public skepticism toward technology” — and that Flock is a visible target because people can see the sensors and cameras as they drive along roads. “A camera at the end of your street is tangible in a way that everyday sharing and selling of personal data online is not,” she said.

Not every city is walking away

The picture is not a one-way exodus. Many local governments are choosing restrictions over removal. Cleveland, Ohio, voted this summer to extend its Flock contract, but has started restricting searches related to immigration and limited database access to the Cleveland Police alone, cutting off the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center. The city is also reviewing responses to a request for proposals sent to other vendors offering similar technology.

Other cities are moving more slowly through the process. In Toledo, a city council vote on ending the Flock contract ended in a tie, leaving the decision with the mayor. In San Diego, a committee voted unanimously to advance a proposal to cancel the city’s contract — a step toward cancellation, not a final decision.

Adam Schwartz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy nonprofit that has investigated Flock, told TechCrunch that grassroots activists have been demanding for years that city councils use their procurement power to refuse to pay for license plate readers — and that “many city councils are listening.”

What it means for your smart home

Flock cameras watch public streets, not living rooms, but the debate lands squarely in smart home territory. The same questions — who sees your camera footage, how long it is stored, and whether it can be shared with agencies you never approved — apply to the video doorbells and security cameras many homeowners install themselves. A class action filed on November 3 accuses Axon of pulling data from privately owned doorbell cameras without a warrant, a reminder that the line between public and private surveillance is getting harder to draw.

The trust gap is already showing up in surveys. A Vivint-commissioned survey of 5,000 U.S. homeowners found that 7 in 10 Americans now own up to 10 smart home devices — but only 24 percent fully trust those devices with their privacy. Flock’s troubles suggest that trust is becoming a buying decision, not just a talking point.

For homeowners, the practical takeaways are straightforward:

• Check your camera’s sharing defaults. Know whether your doorbell or camera footage can be shared with law enforcement, and under what process. Local storage and end-to-end encryption options, where available, keep more control in your hands.
• Review retention settings. Shorter storage windows — the same change Flock made for new customers — reduce the amount of historical data that can be queried later.
• Watch your own city council. In South Windsor, Connecticut, Flock cameras went live last year without public warning or a vote; the town voted in October to remove them. Decisions about neighborhood surveillance are often made with little public notice, and they are easier to shape before the cameras go up than after.

The Flock backlash is unlikely to settle the argument over AI-powered surveillance. With bills pending in Congress, more cities reviewing contracts, and the technology still expanding into new neighborhoods, the cameras on your street — and the data they collect — are set to remain a political flashpoint well into 2027.