Cities across the country are adopting — or rejecting — Flock Safety surveillance systems, which use controversial AI-powered license plate cameras partnered with local police and other law enforcement. Due to concerns over privacy and how Flock allows data to be used, dozens of cities have cancelled their Flock contracts this year. Bend, Oregon, was one of them, but only after passionate city council meetings. Some towns have even had to cover Flock cameras with plastic bags because they aren’t sure if the cams are shut down. 

But what does it mean when Flock comes to town, and what exactly does its technology do? The answers are complex — and incredibly important for the future of surveillance in the US.

Read more: State Laws Against Surveillance and License Plate Cams

Flock gripped news headlines late last year when it was under the microscope during widespread crackdowns by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Though Flock doesn’t have a direct partnership with federal agencies (a blurry line I’ll discuss below), law enforcement agencies are free to share data with departments like ICE, and they frequently do. 

One study from the Center for Human Rights at the University of Washington found that at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies shared their Flock data networks directly with ICE in 2025, and 10 more departments allowed ICE backdoor access without explicitly granting the agency permission. Many other reports outline similar activity.

Following Super Bowl ads about finding lost dogs, Flock was under scrutiny about its planned partnership with Ring, Amazon’s security brand. The integration would have allowed police to request the use of Ring-brand home security cameras for investigations. Following intense public backlash, Ring cut ties with Flock just like my city did, although it now faces a new lawsuit for its own face recognition systems.

To learn more, I spoke to Flock about how the company’s surveillance technology is used (and misused). I also spoke with privacy advocates from the American Civil Liberties Union to discuss surveillance concerns and what communities are doing about it. 

What it means when Flock Safety sets up

If you hear that Flock is setting up near you, it usually means the installation of ALPR cameras to capture license plate photos and monitor cars on the street.

Flock signs contracts with a wide range of entities, including city governments and law enforcement departments. A neighborhood can also partner with Flock — for example, if an HOA decides it wants extra eyes on the road, it may choose to use Flock’s systems.

When Flock secures a contract, the company installs cameras at strategic locations. Though these cameras are primarily marketed for license plate recognition, Flock reports on its site that its surveillance system is intended to reduce crime, including property crimes such as “mail and package theft, home invasions, vandalism, trespassing, and burglary.” The company also says it frequently solves violent crimes like “assault, kidnappings, shootings and homicides.”

Flock has recently expanded into other technologies, including advanced cameras that monitor more than just vehicles. Most concerning are the latest Flock drones equipped with high-powered cameras. Flock’s “Drone as First Responder” platform automates drone operations, including launching them in response to 911 calls or gunfire. Flock’s drones, which reach speeds up to 60 mph, can follow vehicles or people and provide information to law enforcement.

Drones like these can be used to track fleeing suspects. In practice, the key is how law enforcement chooses to use them, and whether states pass laws allowing police to use drones without a warrant — I’ll cover state laws more below, because that’s a big part of today’s surveillance.

It’s important to note that not all cities or neighborhoods refer to Flock Safety by name, even when using its technology. They might mention the Drone as First Responder program, or ALPR cameras, without further details. For example, a March announcement about police drones from the city of Lancaster, California, doesn’t mention Flock at all, even though it was the company behind the drone program. 

How Flock uses tech to ID cars — and people

Flock states on its website that its standard license-plate cameras cannot technically track vehicles, but only take a “point-in-time” image of a car to nab the license plate. 

However, due to AI video and image search, contracted parties like local law enforcement can use these tools to piece together license information and form their own timeline of where and when a vehicle went. Adding to those capabilities, Flock also told Forbes that it’s making efforts to expand access to include video clips and live feeds.

Flock’s machine learning can also note details like a vehicle’s body type, color, the condition of the license plate and a wide variety of identifiers, like roof racks, paint colors and what you have stored in the back. Flock rarely calls this AI, but it’s similar to AI-recognition features you can find in the latest home security cameras

A Flock spokesperson told me the company has boundaries and does not use facial recognition. “We have more traditional video cameras that can send an alert when one sees if a person is in the frame, for instance, in a business park at 2 a.m. or in the public parks after dark.”

By “traditional” cameras, Flock refers to those that capture a wider field of view — more than just cars and license plates — and can record video rather than just snapshot images.

The information Flock can access provides a comprehensive picture that police can use to track cars by running searches on their software. Just like you might Google a local restaurant, police can search for a basic vehicle description and retrieve recent matches that the surveillance equipment may have found. Those searches can sometimes extend to people, too.

“We have an investigative tool called Freeform that lets you use natural language prompts to find the investigative lead you’re looking for, including the description of what a person’s clothes may be,” the Flock spokesperson told me. 

Unlike red-light cameras, Flock’s cameras can be installed nearly anywhere and snap vehicle ID images for all cars. There are Safe Lists that people can use to help Flock cameras filter out vehicles by filling out a form with their address and license plate to mark their vehicle as a “resident.” 

The opposite is also true: Flock cameras can use a hot list of known, wanted vehicles and send automatic alerts to police if one is found.

With Flock drones, these intelligent searches become even more complete, allowing cameras to track where cars are going and identify people. That raises additional privacy concerns about having eyes in the sky over your backyard.

“While flying, the drone faces forward, looking at the horizon, until it gets to the call for service, at which point the camera looks down,” the Flock spokesperson said. “Every flight path is logged in a publicly available flight dashboard for appropriate oversight.”

Yet unlike personal security options, there’s no easy way to opt out of this kind of surveillance. You can’t turn off a feature, cancel a subscription or throw away a device to avoid it. 

And even though more than 45 cities have canceled Flock contracts amid public outcry, that doesn’t guarantee that all surveillance cameras will be removed from the designated area. 

When I reached out to the police department in Eugene, another city in Oregon that ended its Flock contract, the PD director of public information told me that, while there were concerns about certain vulnerabilities and data security requirements with the particular vendor, the technology itself is not the problem. “Eugene Police’s ALPR system experience has demonstrated the value of leveraging ALPR technology to aid investigations … the department must ensure that any vendors meet the highest standards.”

Does Flock track personal information? The devil is in the details

Flock’s stance, as outlined in its privacy and ethics guide, is that license plate numbers and vehicle descriptions aren’t personal information. The company says it doesn’t surveil “private data” — only cars and general descriptive markers.

But vehicle information can be considered personal because it’s legally tied to the vehicle’s owner. Privacy laws, including proposed federal legislation from 2026, prohibit the release of personal information from state motor vehicle records in order to protect citizens.

However, those laws typically include exemptions for legal actions and law enforcement, sometimes even for private security companies.

AI detection also plays a role. When someone can identify a vehicle through searches like “red pickup truck with a dog in the bed,” that tracking goes beyond basic license plates to much more personal information about the driver and their life. It may include the bumper stickers, what can be seen in the backseat and whether a vehicle has a visible gun rack.

Flock’s practices — like its recent push toward live video feeds and drones to track suspects — move out of the gray area, and that’s where privacy advocates are rightly concerned. Despite its policy, it appears you can track specific people using Flock tech. You’ll just need to pay more to do so, such as upgrading from ALPRs to Flock’s suspect-following drone program, or using its Freeform tool to track someone by the clothes they’re wearing.

How does Flock Safety handle the data it collects? 

Flock states on its website that it stores data for 30 days on Amazon Web Services cloud storage and then deletes it. It uses KMS-based encryption (a managed encryption key system common in AWS) and reports that all images and related data are encrypted from on-device storage to cloud storage. 

When Flock collects criminal justice information, or sensitive data managed by law enforcement, it’s only available to official government agencies, not an entity like your local HOA. Because video data is encrypted throughout its transfer to the end user, employees at Flock cannot access it. These are the same kind of security practices I look for when reviewing home security cameras, but there are more complications here.

However, Flock also makes it clear that its customers — whether that’s a local police department, private business or another institution — own their data and control access to it. Once end users access that data, Flock’s own privacy measures don’t do much to help. That raises concerns about the security of local law enforcement systems, each of which has its own data regulations and accountability practices.

Abuse of Flock data

You may have noticed a theme: Flock provides powerful surveillance technology, and the final results are deeply influenced by how customers use it. That can be creepy at best, and an illegal abuse of power at worst.

Since Flock Safety began partnering with law enforcement, a growing number of officers have been found abusing the surveillance system. In one instance, a Kansas police chief used Flock cameras 164 times while tracking an ex. In another case, a sheriff in Texas lied about using Flock to “track a missing person,” but was later found to be investigating a possible abortion. In Georgia, a police chief was arrested for using Flock to stalk and harass citizens. In Virginia, a man sued the city of Norfolk over purported privacy violations and discovered that Flock cameras had been used to track him 526 times, around four times per day.

Those are just a few examples from a long list, giving real substance to worries about a surveillance state and a lack of checks and balances. When I asked Flock how its systems protect against abuse and overreach, a spokesperson referred to its accountability feature, an auditing tool that “records every search that a user of Flock conducts in the system.” Flock used this tool during the Georgia case above, which ultimately led to the arrest of the police chief.

While police search logs are often tracked like this, reports indicate that many authorities start searches with vague terms and cast a wide net using terms like “investigation,” “crime” or a broad immigration term like “deportee” to gain access to as much data as possible. While police can’t avoid Flock’s audit logs, they can use general or discriminatory terms — or skip filling out fields entirely — to evade investigations and hide intent.

Regardless of the auditing tools, the onus is on local organizations to manage investigations, accountability and transparency. That brings me to a particularly impactful current event.

Flock, ICE and the federal government: Data sharing complications

ICE is the elephant in the room in my Flock guide. Does Flock share its surveillance data with federal agencies such as ICE? Yes, the federal government frequently has access to that data, but how it gets access is important.

Flock states on its website that it has not shared data or partnered with ICE or any other Department of Homeland Security officials since terminating its pilot programs in August 2025. Flock says its focus is now on local law enforcement, but that comes with a hands-off approach that doesn’t control what happens to information downstream.

“Flock has no authority to share data on our customers’ behalf, nor the authority to disrupt their law enforcement operations,” the Flock spokesperson told me. “Local police all over the country collaborate with federal agencies for various reasons, with or without Flock technology. “

That collaboration has grown more complex. As Democratic Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon stated in an open letter to Flock Safety, “local” law enforcement isn’t that local anymore, especially when 75% of Flock’s law enforcement customers have enrolled in the National Lookup Tool, which allows information sharing across the country between all participants.

“Flock has built a dangerous platform in which abuse of surveillance data is almost certain,” Wyden wrote. “The company has adopted a see-no-evil approach of not proactively auditing the searches done by its law enforcement customers because, as the company’s Chief Communications Officer told the press, ‘It is not Flock’s job to police the police.'”

Police department sharing isn’t always easy to track, but reporting from 404 Media found that police departments across the country have been creating Flock searches with reasons listed as “immigration,” “ICE,” or “ICE warrant,” among others. Again, since police can put whatever terms they want in these fields — depending on local policies — we don’t know for sure how common it is to look up info for ICE.

Additionally, there’s not always an official process or chain of accountability for sharing this data. In Oregon, reports found that a police department was conducting Flock searches on behalf of ICE and the FBI via a simple email thread.

“When this kind of surveillance power is in malevolent hands — and in the case of ICE, I feel comfortable saying a growing number of Americans view it as a bad actor — these companies are empowering actions the public increasingly finds objectionable,” a lawyer with the ACLU told a Salt Lake City news outlet earlier this year.

With the myriad ways law enforcement shares Flock data with the federal government, it may seem like there’s not much you can do. But one powerful tool is advocating for new laws.

The rise of laws limiting what Flock Safety and police can do

In the past two years, a growing number of state laws have been passed or proposed to address Flock Safety, license plate readers and surveillance. Much of this legislation is bipartisan, or has been passed by both traditionally right- and left-leaning states, although some go further than others.

When I contacted the ACLU to learn what legislation is most effective in situations like this, Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel and lead on the ACLU’s advocacy work for Flock and related surveillance, gave several examples.

“I would limit the allowed uses for ALPR,” Marlow told me. “While some uses, like for toll collection and Amber Alerts, with the right guardrails in place, are not particularly problematic, some ALPRs are used to target communities of color and low-income communities for fine/fee enforcement and for minor crime enforcement, which can exacerbate existing policing inequities.”

This type of harmful ALPR targeting is typically used to both oppress minorities and bring in a greater number of fees for local law organizations — problems that existed long before AI recognition camera, but have been exacerbated by the technology.

New legislation can help, but it needs to be carefully crafted. The most effective laws fall into two categories. The first is requiring any collected ALPR or related data to be deleted within a certain time frame — the shorter, the better. New Hampshire wins here with a 3-minute rule.

“For states that want a little more time to see if captured ALPR data is relevant to an ongoing investigation, keeping the data for a few days is sufficient,” Marlow said. “Some states, like Washington and Virginia, recently adopted 21-day limits, which is the very outermost acceptable limit.” 

The second type of promising law makes it illegal to share ALPR and similar data outside the state (such as with ICE) and has been passed by states like Virginia, Illinois and California. 

“Ideally, no data should be shared outside the collecting agency without a warrant,” Marlow said. “But some states have chosen to prohibit data sharing outside of the state, which is better than nothing, and does limit some risks.”

Vermont, meanwhile, requires a strict approval process for ALPRs that, by 2025, left no law enforcement agency in the state using license cams.

But what happens if police choose to ignore laws and continue using Flock as they see fit? That’s already happened. In California, for example, police in Los Angeles and San Diego were found sharing information with Homeland Security in 2025, in violation of a state law that bans organizations from sharing license plate data out of state.

When this happens, the recourse is typically a lawsuit, either from the state attorney general or a class action by the community, both of which are ongoing in California in 2026. But what should people do while legislation and lawsuits proceed?

Living with Flock Safety and its growing competitors

Marlow acknowledged that individuals can’t do much about Flock surveillance without bans or legislation. 

“Flock identifies and tracks your vehicle by scanning its license plate, and covering your license plate is illegal, so that is not an option,” he told me.

However, Marlow suggested minor changes that could make a difference for those who are seriously worried. “When people are traveling to sensitive locations, they could take public transportation and pay with cash (credit cards can be tracked, as can share-a-rides) or get a lift from a friend, but those aren’t really practical on an everyday basis.”

Ditching or restricting Flock Safety is one way communities are fighting back against what they consider to be unnecessary surveillance with the potential for abuse. But AI surveillance doesn’t begin or end with one company.

Flock Safety is an intermediary that provides technology in demand by powerful organizations. It’s hardly the only one with these kinds of high-tech eyes — it’s just one of the first to enter the market at a national level. If Flock were gone, another company would likely step in to fill the gap, unless restricted by law. 

As Flock’s integration with other apps and cameras becomes more complex, it’s going to be harder to tell where Flock ends and another solution begins, even without rival companies showing up with the latest AI tracking.

But rivals are showing up, from Shield AI for military intelligence to commercial applications by companies like Ambient.ai, Verkada’s AI security searches and the infamous intelligence firm Palantir, all looking for ways to integrate and expand. Motorola, in particular, is in on the action with its VehicleManager platform.

Other steps to take if you’re worried 

The first step is being aware, including knowing which new cameras your city is installing and which software partnerships your local law enforcement has. If you don’t like what you discover, find ways to participate in the decision-making process, like attending open city council meetings on Flock, as in Bend.

On a broader level, keep track of the legislation your state is considering regarding Flock and similar surveillance contracts and operations, as these will have the greatest long-term impact. Blocking data from being shared out of state and requiring police to delete surveillance ASAP are particularly important steps. You can contact your state senators and representatives to encourage legislation like this. 

When you’re wondering what to share with politicians, I recommend something like what Marlow told me: “The idea of keeping a location dossier on every single person just in case one of us turns out to be a criminal is just about the most un-American approach to privacy I can imagine.”

You can also sign up for and donate to projects that are addressing Flock concerns, such as The Plate Privacy Project from The Institute for Justice. I’m currently talking to them about the latest events, and I’ll update if they have any additional tips for us.

Keep following CNET home security, where I break down the latest news you should know, like privacy settings to turn on, security camera settings you may want to turn off and how surveillance intersects with our daily lives. Things are changing fast, but we’re staying on top of it.