The Insight: Why Flock Cameras are Controversial
Flock Safety cameras have quietly created a massive nationwide network of automated license plate readers across America. Law enforcement officials credit the technology with helping solve real-time crimes, tracking stolen vehicles, and finding missing persons. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates warn that the technology creates a blanket system of warrantless surveillance.
The Insight provides you the full picture of facts and viewpoints on a top issue for Americans each week, powered by your questions and balanced answers from our multipartisan news team.
The Questions
How are Flock cameras helping stop crime?
So far, there has been mixed reporting on whether Flock’s surveillance actually lowers crime rates, and while the question is currently front and center in mainstream media coverage, it’s nothing new.
In March 2024, Forbes (Center) published an investigation where it found, contrary to Flock’s claims, that crime actually went up in San Marino, CA in 2021, despite the use of Flock cameras.
Forbes wrote: “For a brief time in 2021, the affluent town of San Marino in Los Angeles County saw a dramatic decrease in residential burglaries, its most common crime. Between January and May, they dropped 80%, down to seven from 32 in the same period of 2020.
For Flock Safety, which had installed AI-powered license plate readers for the San Marino Police Department in June 2020, the statistic was marketing gold. The company seized on this data, claiming its technology was key in decreasing not just burglaries, but all crimes in the town by 70%.
Taking a wider lens tells a different story. Despite that initial five month drop in 2021, residential burglaries on the whole rose after Flock’s cameras were deployed. In 2019, San Marino reported 60 residential burglaries. In 2023, three years after Flock’s arrival, there were 63 — a 5% increase.”
Watch the full video investigation from Forbes here.
A few months prior to that, in February 2024, Flock published a study in conjunction with independent researchers from Texas Christian University and the University of Texas that found their cameras helped police officers solve crimes 9% more often.
In 2026, Flock claimed its cameras have helped police officers in 20% of cases they’ve solved, though neither of these statistics point to a reduction in crime, but rather assistance in solving committed crimes.
However, some argue that assistance in solving committed crimes is a viable way to reduce crime in the long run.
According to Police Chief Magazine, “targeting repeat serial offenders for arrest prevents numerous future crimes. Preventing crime by arresting the small number of offenders who commit most of the robberies, burglaries, and thefts is a sound and reasonable approach to lowering the crime rates.”
Flock cameras, if effective at assisting in solving crimes, may also help enforce the concept known as “The Certainty Effect,” which deters potential offenders when they believe they will be caught, according to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).
How exactly do they work?
Flock Cameras record license plates, vehicle details (such as the make, model, body type, and color), distinctive marks (like bumper stickers or scratches and dents), and movement data (timestamps and physical location coordinates). The Flock website says the hardware is not built to scan personal biometrics or individual faces–only vehicle data.
Which cities are using Flock cameras?
The Hill (Center) reported earlier this week that according to Flock, it has nearly 100,000 cameras installed across 6,000 communities in 49 states, but it doesn’t have “a detailed list of camera locations publicly available.”
AllSides has observed multiple media outlets suggesting Flock has anywhere from 80,000 to 120,000 cameras nationwide.
Notably, last month, Los Angeles, which was one of Flock’s biggest clients, cut ties with the company over a data dispute and privacy concerns. In addition to LA, several other American cities have ended or paused their collaborations with Flock for various reasons. The list includes Mountain View, CA, Santa Cruz, CA, South Pasadena, CA, Madison, WI, Knoxville, TN, Syracuse, NY, and others.
What types of crimes are Flock cameras trying to prevent or target?
Flock cameras are most adept at capturing license plate numbers and vehicle characteristics. This feature allows for the cameras to help deter vehicle thefts, instantly alerting police when a vehicle reported to be stolen passes one of the cameras.
However, the features also allow for tracking vehicles tied to several other types of crimes. Notably, when an AMBER alert is activated, the cameras can automatically notify police and help track down victims of kidnapping and abductions.
The cameras may be used to track down getaway vehicles, whether the crime be a robbery, a domestic violence offender, or someone involved in a homicide or drive-by shooting.
Flock cameras are not intended to aid Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in solving or tracking immigration-related crimes. In fact, Flock itself said that it does not partner with ICE and ended any federal access to the data in August 2025.
However, local law enforcement officers with access to Flock have conducted searches to aid the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on several occasions, according to Colorado Newsline (Center). The Guardian (Left) also alleged that local law enforcement agencies have used data from Flock cameras on public school campuses to aid DHS in immigration enforcement matters.
Do the safety benefits outweigh the privacy concerns?
Commentators and media outlets across the spectrum have debated whether Flock cameras would make a better society or be overly invasive of individuals’ privacy. The debate has not fallen along partisan lines. AllSides examined this on Tuesday in a Headline Roundup:
Privacy Infringement: Adriel Perez-Gonzalez of The Daily Caller (Right) framed Flock cameras as stifling and highlighted instances such as police "using the database to stalk ex-girlfriends" and "innocent drivers" that were "held at gunpoint over cases of mistaken identity." Perez-Gonzalez said "the central question is not whether a society can become safer by monitoring more of its citizens" but "whether Americans are willing to trade whatever semblance of privacy remains in exchange for safety and call it freedom." She also noted that China has deployed surveillance cameras widely and that "we are not China." Perez-Gonzalez concluded, "There will always be another threat. Another crime. Another emergency. Another reason why the responsible thing to do is to surrender just a little more privacy. And there will always be a politician willing to promise that this is the last concession. It never is."
Safer Streets: In an opinion for The Atlantic (Left), Charles Fain Lehman (Lean Right) argued, "Police cameras can help make the criminal-justice system both fairer and less punitive – if we let them." Lehman opened by highlighting that San Francisco rapper Dreamlife Rizzy, who is a convicted felon, has vocally stated he is against the cameras. He added that in addition to "criminals" being "upset" about the cameras, "Flock has become a fixation of the populist right," naming Tucker Carlson (Right) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) as opponents of them. Lehman touted data from Colombia, Sweden, Uruguay, and China that showed cameras lowered crime. He concluded that Flock is "an easy target for populist backlash," and while "some of the concerns are reasonable," eliminating them altogether would "just be foolish."
Are Flock cameras a bipartisan issue?
Several major outlets have framed opposition to cameras as bipartisan. On August 10, The New York Times (Lean Left) published the headline, “Flock Cameras Can Track Every Car in America. Police Love Them. Citizens Don’t.” It followed up in its subhead, “In Texas, there’s one thing liberals and conservatives agree on: They don’t want cameras trained on their cars.”
On the same day, NewsNation (Center) published an analysis that described Flock cameras as a “cross-party political issue,” but stated different reasons for why Democrats and Republicans may oppose them. NewsNation described Republicans’ top concerns as surveillance and logging of citizens’ daily behaviors, while it said for Democrats their usefulness to ICE is a top concern.
Have Flock cameras ever been abused by law enforcement individuals?
Some of the controversy around Flock cameras is their ability to be abused by law enforcement officers who have access to them.
Washington Post (Lean Left) detailed the account of Marci Bakely, a 50-year-old woman in Georgia, whose ex-boyfriend, the chief of police in his town, used Flock camera footage to stalk her. It also recounted similar stories from women in California, Kansas, and Wisconsin.
In North Carolina, a female police officer abused Flock to look up data about her partner’s ex-wife, according to NewsNation (Center).
The Post reported that at least 50 officers have been charged for abusing Flock data, 26 of which involved abusing the camera footage to stalk women.
.png)
.png.webp)
