The surveillance state has crept up round us, however in at the least one occasion, its integration into society has prompted a backlash. Flock Security has managed to make automated license plate readers (ALPRs), cameras that report the license plate and different traits of each car that passes them, a hot-button challenge throughout the USA.
More than 50 agencies or jurisdictions have canceled, suspended, or rejected Flock contracts, or deactivated its cameras, because the begin of 2026. The general public strain has change into robust sufficient that Flock CEO Garrett Langley announced a raft of changes to how his service operates on August 13, together with slicing its default information retention interval from 30 days to seven, requiring case codes for police searches, and making software program designed to detect suspicious searches obligatory.
It’s a major hit for the corporate, and a victory for privateness campaigners. However a marketing campaign in opposition to Flock doesn’t do a lot to sort out the surveillance system of which Flock is only a small half.
“The corporate actually introduced folks into this dialog, however the expertise made them keep,” says Anaya Robinson, public coverage director on the ACLU of Colorado. Flock has change into the identify hooked up to ALPR surveillance in a lot the identical manner Google grew to become a family verb for looking out the web, Robinson argues. That makes it simpler for folks to consider the issue as one troublesome firm quite than an entire class of surveillance tech.
Flock grew to become a flashpoint partially due to how quietly its expertise spread into communities. Many native authorities contracts had been sufficiently small to be signed with out the kind of legislative approval or public session which may have alerted residents to what was being arrange. And as soon as folks did begin wanting, controversies round Flock gave them lots to analyze. “The extra folks perceive that Flock cameras or different sorts of ALPRs or different sorts of surveillance are getting used of their jurisdictions, the extra involved folks change into,” Robinson says.
However by shunning Flock, there’s a danger that communities are merely altering the brand on the surveillance product whereas protecting the digital camera itself.
Following fierce criticism of Flock and considerations about entry to town’s information, officers in Denver, Colorado, allowed its contract to run out, then promptly approved a $150,000 contract with a competitor, Axon for 50 ALPR cameras. Privateness campaigners who helped push Flock out opposed the Axon deal too, however to no avail.
Cooper Quintin, senior employees technologist on the Digital Frontier Basis, says that whereas the pushback in opposition to Flock proves communities can constrain surveillance firms, voluntary product adjustments finally don’t sort out the foundation reason behind the issue.
“Invasive searches like ALPR database queries should require a judicial warrant,” Quintin says. “Policymakers should seize this second—when even the main ALPR vendor has admitted they’ve performed too little to stop abuse—to, at minimal, codify actual protections into regulation.”
Flock’s position as a lightning rod for the controversy over the surveillance state is beneficial. However driving Flock out of city whereas shopping for virtually the identical expertise from any person else dangers successful the battle whereas leaving the broader battle in opposition to unwarranted surveillance unresolved.
“The true root of the issue isn’t one singular vendor,” says the ACLU’s Robinson. “It’s the unregulated use of this expertise itself.”
