The Concerns

The Concerns

This page presents documented concerns raised by journalists, auditors, civil liberties organizations, and city officials across the country. These are factual records, not opinions.

1. Documented Unauthorized Data Sharing

Despite Flock's stated policies, multiple audits and lawsuits have documented instances of data being shared beyond what local agencies authorized:

  • An Illinois state audit determined that Flock Safety allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to access Illinois license plate cameras on Illinois roads and run surveillance on drivers, which the state found violated Illinois law. (Government Technology)
  • A class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco in February 2026 alleges that federal agencies — including ICE, CBP, FBI, and ATF — queried San Francisco Police Department Flock cameras more than 1.6 million times in a seven-month period. Los Altos, California readers reportedly shared information with out-of-state agencies more than one million times. Oxnard Police suspended their Flock cameras after discovering a "vendor-based issue" allowed federal access without their knowledge. (State of Surveillance)
  • Mountain View police department alleges that Flock, not the department, turned on the ability for out-of-state law enforcement agencies to view the data from the department's cameras. (Class Law Group)

2. The Scale of the National Network

A key concern raised by privacy advocates is not just what happens locally, but how local data connects to a national system:

Researchers estimate that there are 80,000 or more Flock cameras currently deployed, including automated license plate readers, pan-tilt-zoom surveillance units, mobile devices, and third-party integrated cameras connected to Flock's systems, yet many citizens are not even aware of these devices' existence. (CB Insights)

In January 2026, Flock introduced a new "Federal Sharing" toggle in admin settings — a single switch that lets any agency cut off all federal access at once. Critics note that this toggle exists because agencies discovered they needed it after finding out federal access was happening — it was a fix to a problem the design created. (State of Surveillance)

3. Staunton, Virginia: A Local Perspective

This concern has been raised even by law enforcement in our own region. Jim Williams, the police chief in Staunton, Virginia, wrote to Flock's CEO disagreeing with the company's characterization of critics, writing: "What we are seeing here is a group of local citizens who are raising concerns that we could be potentially surveilling private citizens, residents and visitors and using the data for nefarious purposes." (NPR)

4. Cities That Have Exited or Paused Flock Contracts

Evanston, Illinois terminated its Flock contract and deactivated all 19 cameras. Oak Park did the same. The Illinois audit found 47 agencies had to be removed from access to the state's data after violations were discovered. (State of Surveillance)

Mountain View ended its relationship with Flock after federal agents accessed the city's ALPR data in violation of state law. Santa Cruz Police Chief Bernie Escalante admitted during a City Council meeting that out-of-state law enforcement agencies had accessed his city's ALPR data, which resulted in the city council voting to terminate the contract. (48 Hills)