Smile! You're (always) on Camera
Aniket Tank, editor-in-chief
Flock cameras and fears of surveillance have become an increasingly discussed issue in American society, largely spearheaded by the spread of Flock cameras throughout the country. What began as a side project for three Georgia Tech alumni, the Flock Safety company has become the face of America’s growing surveillance state.
Flock cameras are a type of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) that take pictures of vehicles that pass through the cameras field of view. Flock cameras can identify license plate numbers, make, model and year of the car, as well as little things like dents, stickers and other identifying information. Artificial Intelligence is used to identify these features and to organize the data into an easily searchable database. There are estimates of 120,000 Flock cameras in the U.S., with about 10,000 of those being in Georgia. There are many in and around Johns Creek. The cameras are mainly used by police departments to track down people and solve crimes. According to Flock’s website, their technology has helped locate over 10,000 people, but many privacy activists, politicians and people have raised concerns over the widespread adoption of this technology.
Five police officers in Indianapolis were charged with fraud and official misconduct after it was alleged that they tracked license plates of partners, ex-partners, and spouses using Flock cameras. An investigation led by The Washington Post in August found at least 69 police officers accused, charged or convicted of improperly using Flock or other license plate reader systems. In at least 15 cases, someone outside the police department first identified the possible misuse. The investigation also found departments that did not regularly audit their officers' searches.
Georgia, in particular, has experienced similar cases. According to the Institute for Justice’s database of ALPR misuse, five Albany police officers were fired and arrested in July after allegedly misusing Flock cameras. In Jefferson, Georgia Police Chief Michel Steffman used Flock cameras to stalk his ex-girlfriend and her teenage daughter roughly 600 times according to public records. The database also identifies allegations involving officers in several other Georgia jurisdictions.
Flock responded to these incidents by introducing new safety and privacy policies. First, they reduced the amount of time data is stored, from 30 days to a week. They also strengthened the system they use to flag suspicious behavior, and they now will “proactively lockout” individuals who are suspected of misuse. Additionally, a criminal case code will be required when conducting a search.
Another main argument against Flock cameras is that they violate the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment protects people from unwarranted search and seizure of private property. ALPRs have traditionally been considered legal under the 4th Amendment because basic street cameras gather little data that has a low expectation of privacy, but critics argue that because Flock cameras gather much more data and stores that data in easily searchable databases, the data should require a warrant.
While Flock cameras have raised Fourth Amendment concerns, courts have not held that the technology itself is unconstitutional. In Robinson v. Commonwealth, decided this year on April 7, the Virginia Court of Appeals examined whether police needed a warrant to search data collected by Norfolk’s network, which contained 172 Flock cameras. Police investigating a series of burglaries had footage of a white BMW with black rims but could not view its license plate. Utilizing Flock data from cameras near the area, investigators identified a matching vehicle with its plate, ultimately connecting the car to a man named Eddie Robinson. Robinson argued that accessing stored location and movement data without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
However, the court disagreed and ruled that because his vehicle was on public roads, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in its visible characteristics. The court also distinguished Norfolk’s system from other more comprehensive forms of location tracking because the cameras captured periodic photos rather than continuously tracking a person’s movements. However, this ruling only applied to Norfolk’s current system. The court refused to determine whether a larger or more comprehensive Flock network can eventually create and store enough information about someone’s movements to raise Fourth Amendment protections.
That unanswered constitutional question is vital to the argument of privacy advocates. In another case involving Norfolk’s Flock network, Schmidt v. Norfolk, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have argued that each observation should not be considered separately. Instead, they argue that interconnected ALPR databases can combine location points into records that reveal routines about a person’s movement, including people who were never even suspected of committing a crime. The case remains ongoing.
Furthermore, privacy concerns extend beyond whether photographing a license plate is legal. According to Flock’s current policy, its systems can store vehicle and license plate images, plate numbers and states, vehicle characteristics, dates, times, and camera locations. Flock says it also logs searches, including the user, time, search purpose, and the plate or other information used in the query. The company also promotes regular audits of these searches and says it uses safeguards, including role-based access permissions and monitoring.
As Flock networks expand, the debate becomes about more than simply whether a camera can photograph a license plate. Courts, privacy advocates, police departments and communities are confronting a more complicated question: At what point do numerous individual observations become a detailed report of where someone has been?
Politicians from both sides of the aisle have introduced anti-surveillance legislation and investigations. Republican Senator Josh Hawley called for a Senate hearing on the widespread adoption of surveillance technology. Hawley invited executives from tech companies, including Flock, but none decided to attend.
“I think we need to hear from them about what it is their networks do. I think we need to hear from them about their intentions, about their capabilities.” Hawley said.
Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA-17) and Senator Thomas Massie (R-KY) co-sponsored the “Flock-Off” Act in September 2026. The “Flock-Off” Act would cut federal funding for ALPRs and other surveillance technology. Most recently, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14), and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the Ban Flock Act, which would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing ALPRs and cut state and local funding for areas that use them.
“Big Tech companies like Flock Safety have built a mass surveillance system to harvest Americans’ private and personal data without their consent,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
At the state level, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have made efforts to block state funding or take down Flock cameras.
“I think these cameras, the license plate readers, I think it’s out of control,” said DeSantis. Widespread bipartisan support for anti-surveillance legislation has grown with anti-data center and anti-A. I sentiment.
60 percent of all voters have negative views on Flock cameras, according to a poll by Data for progress, with democrats and republicans having very similar splits in terms of positive and negative views on Flock. A poll by Reuters shows that there is a divide in approval of Flock cameras by age. 21 percent of 18–34-year-olds want Flock cameras in their neighborhoods while 53 percent of people aged 55+ would want Flock cameras in their neighborhoods.
The ACLU has also warned of other ALPR companies for anti-surveillance activists to look out for. Motorola Solutions is Flock’s biggest competitor, in addition to ALPRs, Motorola also sells cameras for vehicles that capture data as a car or truck is driving. This data is then sold and could be given to law enforcement.
While the legality of Flock cameras and other ALPRs remain a question for the courts, public opinion is moving increasingly against them. More than 150 local governments have rejected or cancelled contracts with Flock and other ALPR companies as a result of the public backlash.