The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

Residents of Dunwoody, Georgia are furious about the city's surveillance contract with Flock. Do their elected officials care?#Flock


City Learns Flock Accessed Cameras in Children's Gymnastics Room as a Sales Pitch Demo, Renews Contract Anyway


Residents of an Atlanta suburb have been rocked by the revelation that sales employees at Flock have been accessing sensitive cameras in the town to demonstrate the company’s surveillance technology to police departments around the country. The cameras accessed have included surveillance tech in a children’s gymnastics room, a playground, a school, a Jewish community center, and a pool.

Flock has taken issue with the way that residents and activists have characterized the access but confirmed that the camera access did happen as part of its sales demonstrations. A blog post by Jason Hunyar, a Dunwoody, Georgia resident who learned about Flock accessing the city’s cameras by obtaining Flock access logs via a public records request is called “Why Are Flock Employees Watching Our Children?

Flock has pushed back against this characterization on social media, in a blog post, at city council meetings, and in a statement to 404 Media: “The city of Dunwoody is one city in our demo partner program,” a Flock spokesperson told 404 Media. “The cities involved in this program have authorized select Flock employees to demonstrate new products and features as we develop them in partnership with the city. Moreover, select engineers can access accounts with customer permission to debug or fix any issues that may arise. No one is spying on children in parks, as the substack incorrectly asserts.”

Flock also argued that it is more transparent than any other surveillance company because it creates these access logs at all, and they can be obtained using public records requests. “Also, I must state the irony of the situation. We're one of the few technology companies in this space dedicated to radical transparency [...] I understand the concern from the resident, but it is unequivocally false to assert that Flock, or the police, or city officials are doing anything other than using technology to stop major crimes in the city.”

The records Hunyar obtained, however, show that some of the cameras that were accessed were in sensitive locations, including the pool at the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta (in Dunwoody), the children’s gymnastics room at MJCCA, and several fitness centers and studios. The access logs obtained by Hunyar show at the very least how expansive Flock’s surveillance systems can be in a single city, encompassing not just cameras purchased by the city but also cameras purchased by private businesses.
A picture of Dunwoody's "Real Time Crime Center," which is "powered by Flock Safety." Image: City of Dunwoody
After Hunyar wrote about what he found, Flock has agreed to stop using Dunwoody’s cameras to demonstrate its product. Flock’s FAQ page states that “Flock customers own their data” and “Flock will not share, sell, or access your data.” It also states “nobody from Flock Safety is accessing or monitoring your footage.” Flock also published a blog post that notes “one of the benefits communities value most about Flock technology is the ability for law enforcement to directly access privately owned cameras, if and only if the organization allows them to, for crime-solving and security purposes.”

💡
Do you know anything else about Flock? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at jason.404. Otherwise, send me an email at jason@404media.co.

“Fair questions have been asked about conducting demos on cameras in sensitive locations when doing this very critical testing in the real-world. Last week, in the City of Dunwoody, questions were raised about a demo conducted as part of authorized activity approved under the city's demo partner agreement, on cameras at a local Jewish Community Center. Although the camera was only viewed during a routine demo, we understand that this is a sensitive location for many. We have therefore determined that employees will be trained to only conduct demos in more public locations, like retail parking lots,” Flock wrote in the blog. “Accusing someone of spying on children is not a policy disagreement; it is a life-altering allegation. Claims of inappropriate conduct by our employees are false. The employees being named online are well-intentioned employees who accessed a camera network with the city's explicit permission, as part of their job. They are now being called predators for it.”

The incident prompted a direct email apology from Flock CEO Garrett Langley to the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta which was then forwarded to Dunwoody Mayor Lynn Deutsch. That email was obtained by Hunyar using a public records request and was shared with 404 Media: “You may have seen that questions have been raised about Flock employees’ access to security cameras near MJCCA property. While there is a lot of misinformation propagated by some of the voices making these allegations, I want to be direct and apologize for our poor judgement.”

“Because of our relationship with Dunwoody PD as a development partner–meaning we had explicit permission from Dunwoody to use their Flock system for both testing (for product improvement) and demonstration–Flock employees did occasionally access Dunwoody’s devices for those purposes,” Langley added. “I recognize that the choice to use MJCCA, rather than parts of the city, was a poor one on our part. I am cognizant of the additional, well-founded sensitivity of the Jewish community to security concerns at this time. Therefore, I would like to extend a formal apology to you and the entire MJCCA community for this poor decision. Candidly, it is because of the very real security concerns the MJCCA community is feeling that I am so proud of our partnership, and those with Jewish organizations across the country.”


youtube.com/embed/AqOYDNKBr3g?…
For nearly three hours earlier this month, resident after resident questioned the Dunwoody City Council about its relationship with Flock, which is extremely close. Flock has repeatedly championed its work in Dunwoody, and Dunwoody has a "real time crime center" that features a giant wall of Flock cameras and is "powered by Flock Safety."

"Powered by Flock Safety, the cutting-edge RTCC is a comprehensive command center that brings together the City’s license plate recognition (LPR) cameras, gunshot detection, police body cameras, Condor pan-tilt cameras, Flock's Adaptive 911, call geolocation, and third-party video cameras," the city's website says.

At the city council meeting, the residents universally explained to their elected officials that they did not want their tax money funding surveillance technology that has been used to collaborate with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, to look for a woman who had an abortion, has been abused by police officers to stalk women and surveil protests, has suffered from numerous security and privacy scandals, and was now using their city as, at best, a live surveillance sales demonstration and, at worst, was surveilling the city’s children.

“It’s pretty shocking that Flock employees are watching children in Dunwoody. Like, isn’t that mind boggling?,” resident Kenneth Westmoreland testified. “I think it would go a long way if you just showed up with even a little bit of willingness beyond public comment to listen to people who actually know what they’re talking about … It's like, would you put their camera in your child's bedroom? I don't know, but it seems a little bit like it to me.”

Another resident, Aaron Miller, suggested that continuing the Flock contract could be a liability for the city, mentioned that its cameras have been used for stalking, that Flock data has been given to ICE, and that Dunwoody’s cameras had been accessed by Flock. “If and when this misconduct crosses yet another line into unequivocal stalking or god forbid something worse, you will be responsible and you will have to answer for the fact that you knew well in advance that this technology enables and facilitates these kinds of gross violations, and it’s not just about the fine details of the contract,” Miller said.

“We should get rid of Flock,” another resident, Sean Collins, said plainly. “I want to congratulate everyone sitting here that has come out all these weeks and put all their effort and their time into this to not only research and write speeches, but to try and inform you guys and persuade you guys. I think it’s awesome that the community is building, unfortunately, around a negative event and hopefully in the future we can build around something positive instead.”

During the three hours, I was impressed with the depth of knowledge residents had about a relatively complex surveillance system and the many ways that Flock has been abused, many of which we have reported on over the last several years. Not every resident got every fact correct, and Flock has made it abundantly clear that it believes the idea that it is “spying on children” is unfair. And yet, it is reasonable for residents to wonder why their city is being used as a live sales demo, why their community is so heavily surveilled, and why these cameras are being accessed so often. It is reasonable for residents to want to have a conversation about whether they want this technology at all.

And the overwhelming message from Dunwoody residents is: This is too much. They are not interested in minor tweaks to contracts, lip service about privacy, being told that their concerns are overblown or don’t matter, and being told to go away. They are not interested in being told that the reason there are livestreaming cameras at the children’s gymnastics room is complicated, actually. And yet, that is exactly what their politicians and Flock itself have been telling them.

After these and many other impassioned speeches from residents, Dunwoody mayor Lynn Deutsch said she was “concerned and perplexed” when she learned that sensitive Dunwoody cameras were being accessed, then said “I sought a solution and where we landed is that Flock will no longer use Dunwoody for demonstration projects. So that wasn’t acceptable. They have apologized to the JCC [Jewish Community Center] … I’m not excusing it at all, I was very frustrated and angry and I believe this is a solution, at least part of a solution from keeping them out of places Flock should not be.”

“The inference that we’re doing something behind doors, that we’re taking bribes, it’s all kinds of not at all correct,” she added. “We haven’t done any of this in secret. I cannot stress enough that none of this was done without proper notice.” She then said that she did not have any interest in ending the city’s Flock contract, though some tweaks to its existing contract would be sought.

Jason Hunyar, the man who requested the public records that showed how broad Flock’s network is and the fact that Flock employees were accessing the city’s cameras, shared an email exchange he had with Deutsch and other city officials when he first discovered what was happening.

“Mayor/City Council, Here is a write-up I'm going to release publicly after I send this email detailing the unfettered access that Flock has to our data. This includes … watching us and our children at the library, MJCCs pools, MJCCs fitness centers, and MJCCs gymnastics studio,” he wrote. “They are even watching you in your council chambers … I am also going to be a member of the JCC coming this fall and my son is going to be in the preschool where some of these exact cameras that these flock employees are looking at. This is where a ton of my concern comes from.”

Deutsch responded and suggested it was irresponsible for him to reveal this information: “Does the JCC realize you’re sharing all about their security system publicly?”

“If I was sending a child to the JCC for preschool, I’m pretty confident, and I say this as a Jewish grandmother with a grandchild in a synagogue preschool, that my number one concern would be security in today’s environment,” she wrote. “I’m disappointed to know that all this is in the public domain, because I think we’re better off when the bad guys don’t know exactly what precautions have been taken. But here we are.”

“I look forward to protecting MJCCA and the City of Dunwoody for years to come.”


Hunyar told me that prior to seeing reporting by 404 Media and the YouTuber Benn Jordan, who lives nearby and has revealed numerous Flock security and privacy problems, he had “never submitted a public records request before or gone to a city council meeting.” He said that he has been frustrated with how the city has responded: “I’ve been trying to explain to them how the technology works, they ask the police, the police lies to them at the city council meeting,” he said. “It’s been a lot of educating them. They’re trying to do this performative stuff by slightly tweaking the contract, and [when I tell them how Flock works], I think ‘Why are you asking me about this and not freaking out that Flock has access to cameras in the children’s gymnastics room?’”

Over the last few months, numerous cities across the country have decided to end their Flock contracts after organizing by residents. In some cases, police and city council members have themselves decided to end Flock contracts due to some of the company’s scandals. In one case, a Virginia police department decided to get rid of Flock after the police chief felt Langley was mischaracterizing the valid privacy concerns of residents as a concerted conspiracy against Flock and its technology.

Despite all of the reporting and outrage about this type of surveillance, cities around the country are still signing new contracts with Flock, often using “discretionary” police or city council funds that can be used with little or no public debate.

Georgia Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Chris Carr saw all that happened in Dunwoody and decided to praise Flock: “Mayor - thanks to Council and you for supporting the use of FLOCK technology,” he wrote. “Georgia’s Constitution says that government has one paramount duty - the protection of person and property. I’m proud to say that Dunwoody’s leadership lived up to their duty by continuing to partner with FLOCK.”

Making anything other than minor changes to the Dunwoody contract does not seem to be on the table; Dunwoody officials including the mayor declined to speak to 404 Media for this story, offering only a statement from a city spokesperson that said “We are working through a range of items with Flock as we develop a Master Services Agreement for consideration by City Council.” When I followed up, I was told “This was discussed during the City Council meeting. I don’t have anything to add.” Dunwoody voted to renew its contract after all of this.

In Langley’s apology email to the MJCCA, he said “I look forward to protecting MJCCA and the City of Dunwoody for years to come.”


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

Ron DeSantis has empowered hundreds of Florida conservation police to work directly with ICE.#Flock #ICE


Wildlife Conservation Police Are Searching Thousands of Flock Cameras for ICE


Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) police are performing dozens of license plate lookups on Flock cameras for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to public records that show details of the searches.

The practice highlights how ICE, which does not have a contract with Flock, continues to get access to Flock’s AI-powered license plate scanning cameras through local and state police, and often in ways that are unusual, unexpected, and difficult for the public to track or hold the agency accountable for. In this case, ICE has gained access to Flock data through a law enforcement agency that is nominally supposed to be focused on conservation, protecting endangered species, and investigating boating and maritime issues. 404 Media initially reported on how ICE was getting side-door access to Flock data via local police in May 2025.

That reporting led to a series of reforms and safeguards that are supposed to make it easier for law enforcement agencies that use Flock to opt out of having their surveillance camera data passed to federal agencies; a blog post by Flock called “Does Flock Share Data With ICE?” now states plainly “No. Flock does not work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or any other sub-agency of the Department of Homeland Security.” But in practice, the public records show that as of the end of January (the most recent data available) thousands of agencies around the country were sharing their camera data with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission police, which was then regularly performing lookups for ICE.

Flock cameras continually scan the license plate, brand, and color of every vehicle that drives by. Law enforcement can then search the Flock system to see where else a vehicle has travelled. Crucially, Flock maintains a national lookup tool where agencies in one state can search data generated by cameras in another, even if those cameras are on the other side of the country. Law enforcement typically do this without a warrant.

💡
Do you know anything else about Flock? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at jason.404. Otherwise, send me an email at jason@404media.co.

A January Flock network audit for Ball State University, a public university in Indiana that has a contract with Flock, shows that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission police performed 38 different Flock searches for reasons that were listed as “immigration.”

Flock network audits are spreadsheets that have a separate entry for each time a police department’s Flock data is queried by another agency. Each entry contains information about how many different networks and cameras were searched, the time of the search, and the stated “reason” for the search. The searches performed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission had reasons that ranged from “Immigration (civil/administrative) - I.C.E.” to “Immigration (criminal) - General Criminal Investigation” to “Immigration (criminal) - I.C.E.” The network audit indicated that more than 5,000 different Flock networks were searched in each case, indicating that, as of January, thousands of towns and cities were still sharing data with agencies that ultimately work with ICE despite new safeguards put in place by Flock.

“This highlights when you do mass surveillance, you really can’t control the data,” Jay Stanley, a senior analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404 Media. “I doubt there were many cities that were debating the Florida Fish and Wildlife Services doing searches for ICE when they were talking about whether they should get Flock. It shows these searches can come from really any direction.”

The records in question were obtained from Ball State University by the journalist David Covucci, who covers college sports for his website FOIABall. Covucci shared the documents with 404 Media. The documents showed that, beyond the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission police, the Texas Department of Public Safety, Grant County Indiana Sheriff's Office, Lake County Indiana police, Sarasota County Florida police, Brevard County Florida Sheriff's Office, Nebraska State Patrol, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Fort Pierce Florida Police Department, and Mississippi Department of Public Safety had all done immigration-related Flock searches in January. This means that all of these agencies ultimately searched Flock cameras on Ball State’s campus (and thousands of others across the country) for immigration-related purposes.

Police with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are able to do these lookups for ICE because in August, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis enrolled nearly 800 of its officers in 287(g), a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program that gives state and local police certain immigration enforcement powers. DeSantis has essentially turned many state police into an extension of ICE: “Florida is setting the example for states in combating illegal immigration and working with the Trump Administration to restore the rule of law,” DeSantis said in a press release announcing the move. “By allowing our state agents and law enforcement officers to be trained and approved by ICE, Florida will now have more enforcement personnel deputized to assist federal partners. That means deportations can be carried out more efficiently, making our communities safer as illegal aliens are removed.”

The ACLU published a report in February about how the expansion of the 287(g) program has vastly increased the Trump administration’s deportation force. “While in recent months the nation’s attention has rightly focused on the violence and abuse perpetrated by ICE and Border Patrol agents in places like Minneapolis, in Florida and around the country, communities are experiencing another kind of terror: Their own law enforcement agencies, working hand in glove with the Trump administration, are the perpetrators of blatant racial profiling, harassment, and even violence,” the report says.

The report specifically notes that “Florida appears to have devoted more state and local law enforcement resources to immigration enforcement than any other state, resulting in numerous cases of harassment and profiling of U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike, a climate of extreme fear in communities, and reports of serious civil rights violations.”

The ACLU’s Stanley said that the expansion of 287(g) has made a lot of the debates that communities are having about federal access to Flock data feel outdated, because they may fail to grapple with the fact that local police around the country are now doing work on behalf of federal authorities. “A lot of the focus in communities and elsewhere where Flock is controversial have focused on this question of ‘Will the feds be able to access this data?,’” Stanley said. “This is a reminder that the sharp expansion of 287(g) has made that almost moot because a lot of local authorities are working so closely with ICE.”

Flock has in recent months attempted to distance itself from ICE, in part with the “Does Flock Share Data With ICE?” blog post and with numerous media appearances and LinkedIn posts by its executives. Flock has repeatedly leaned on the idea that its customers own and control their data, and that Flock has made numerous changes to comply with several states’ laws that forbid the use of license plate reader data for immigration or abortion enforcement, or which ban the transfer of license plate camera data out of the state altogether.

“As we've shared with your organization many times, all our customers own their data and choose how to use it, provided it complies with local laws and statutes,” a spokesperson for Flock told 404 Media. “In cities and states where cooperating with federal immigration is against the law, we block that from happening within the product itself. In states where cooperation is legal, customers and their local values determine how they choose to enforce the law.”

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokesperson for Gov. DeSantis’s office, however, told 404 Media that the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission continues to work with ICE. “Please note that it is NOT out of the ordinary for FWC to work alongside ICE as they have a 287 (g) agreement with them-as do all State of Florida law enforcement agencies,” they said.

404 Media, other reporters, and transparency advocates have been reporting on the use of Flock cameras primarily by obtaining network audits through public records requests. But the utility of those network audits is rapidly deteriorating; as we reported earlier this year, Flock has made changes to its network audits that makes each individual entry more vague, and authorities have warned police to be “as vague as permissible” about the reasons why they are using Flock. Many Flock search reasons simply say “investigation” or another blanket term, making it impossible to know why the system was really used. Because of this change, it may become harder to track which agencies are working with ICE, and how often it’s happening.

“I think everybody using Flock knows you can get away with putting something like a generic descriptor that won’t tip off communities to what’s going on,” Stanley said. “This window of visibility is closing, even this very limited flawed, manipulable window of visibility is closing.”


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

“CAPTURED ON FLOCK CAMERA 31 MM 1 HOLDING PHONE IN LEFT HAND.”#Flock


Police Used Flock to Give a Man a Traffic Ticket


Georgia State Patrol used its system of Flock automated license plate reader (ALPR) surveillance cameras to issue a ticket to a motorcyclist who was allegedly looking at his cell phone while riding, according to a copy of the citation obtained by 404 Media. The incident is notable because Flock cameras are not designed for traffic enforcement or minor code violations, and many jurisdictions explicitly tell constituents that the cameras will not be used for traffic enforcement.

The incident happened December 26 in Coffee County, Georgia. The ticket lists the offense as “Holding/supporting wireless telecommunications device,” and includes the note “CAPTURED ON FLOCK CAMERA 31 MM 1 HOLDING PHONE IN LEFT HAND.”

A spokesperson for the Georgia State Patrol told 404 Media that the ticket was issued because of a “unique circumstance” in which a Flock camera happened to capture a traffic infraction, and that Flock cameras are not usually used by the department for traffic enforcement.

“This incident was a rare and unique circumstance where the captured image from the camera exposed an additional violation beyond the vehicle’s expired registration,” the spokesperson said. “This situation does not reflect a standard enforcement endeavor by the Department of Public Safety.” The traffic citation obtained by 404 Media does not mention that the man’s registration was expired.

Still, the incident is notable because Flock cameras are often pitched to police as tools for solving serious crimes, finding stolen vehicles, and locating missing people. They distinctly are not traffic cameras and are not pitched as such; the use of a Flock camera in this way shows that the images they capture can sometimes be detailed enough to be used as the pretext for a traffic violation, anyway.

Many police departments go out of their way to tell community members that Flock cameras are not used for traffic enforcement. For example, the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, states in a FAQ that “GSPD [Glenwood Springs Police Department] does not use Flock cameras for traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, or minor code violations.” El Paso, Texas, tells residents “these are not traffic enforcement cameras. They do not issue tickets, do not monitor speed, and do not generate revenue. They are investigative tools used after crimes occur.” Lynwood, Washington tells residents “these cameras will not be used for traffic infractions, immigration enforcement, or monitoring First Amendment-protected expressive activity” (Flock cameras have now been used for all of these purposes, as we have reported.)

The fact that police in Georgia did use Flock cameras for traffic enforcement highlights yet again that, essentially, law enforcement agencies are able to use these cameras for whatever they want. There are very few limitations on what Flock cameras can be used for, and police do not get warrants to search Flock’s network of cameras, either locally or nationwide. Network audits, which are spreadsheets of Flock searches we have obtained via public records requests, have shown that police use Flock for all sorts of reasons; they often do not list any reason at all for searching a license plate.

The man who was cited in Georgia posted about the incident in an anti-Flock Facebook group asking for advice. He said that he showed up in court and the ticket was dropped. The man did not respond to multiple requests for comment from 404 Media and because he is a private citizen cited for a minor traffic violation, we are not naming him. 404 Media independently obtained the citation.


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

Flock accidentally exposed training materials and a panel which tracked what its AI annotators were working on. It showed that Flock, which has cameras in thousands of U.S. communities, is using workers in the Philippines to review and classify footage.#Flock


Flock Uses Overseas Gig Workers to Build its Surveillance AI


This article was produced with support from WIRED.

Flock, the automatic license plate reader (ALPR) and AI-powered camera company, uses overseas workers from Upwork to train its machine learning algorithms, with training material telling workers how to review and categorize footage including images people and vehicles in the U.S., according to material reviewed by 404 Media that was accidentally exposed by the company.

The findings bring up questions about who exactly has access to footage collected by Flock surveillance cameras and where people reviewing the footage may be based. Flock has become a pervasive technology in the U.S., with its cameras present in thousands of communities that cops use everyday to investigate things like car jackings. Local police have also performed numerous lookups for ICE in the system.

Companies that use AI or machine learning regularly turn to overseas workers to train their algorithms, often because the labor is cheaper than hiring domestically. But the nature of Flock’s business—creating a surveillance system that constantly monitors U.S. residents’ movements—means that footage might be more sensitive than other AI training jobs.

💡
Do you work at Flock or know more about the company? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co.

Flock’s cameras continuously scan the license plate, color, brand, and model of all vehicles that drive by. Law enforcement are then able to search cameras nationwide to see where else a vehicle has driven. Authorities typically dig through this data without a warrant, leading the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to recently sue a city blanketed in nearly 500 Flock cameras.

Broadly, Flock uses AI or machine learning to automatically detect license plates, vehicles, and people, including what clothes they are wearing, from camera footage. A Flock patent also mentions cameras detecting “race.”



Screenshots from the exposed material. Redactions by 404 Media.

Multiple tipsters pointed 404 Media to an exposed online panel which showed various metrics associated with Flock’s AI training.

This post is for subscribers only


Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now


A massive cache of Flock lookups collated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) shows as many as 50 federal, state, and local agencies used Flock during protests over the last year.#Flock #borderpatrol #FOIA


Cops Used Flock to Monitor No Kings Protests Around the Country


Police departments and officials from Border Patrol used Flock’s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to monitor protests hundreds of times around the country during the last year, including No Kings protests in June and October, according to data obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

The data provides the clearest picture yet of how cops widely use Flock to monitor protesters. In June, 404 Media reported cops in California used Flock to track what it described as an “immigration protest.” The new data shows more than 50 federal, state, and local law enforcement ran hundreds of searches in connection with protest activity, according to the EFF.

This post is for subscribers only


Become a member to get access to all content
Subscribe now


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

“Most drivers are unaware that San Jose’s Police Department is tracking their locations and do not know all that their saved location data can reveal about their private lives and activities."#Flock


ACLU and EFF Sue a City Blanketed With Flock Surveillance Cameras


Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the city of San Jose, California over its deployment of Flock’s license plate-reading surveillance cameras, claiming that the city’s nearly 500 cameras create a pervasive database of residents movements in a surveillance network that is essentially impossible to avoid.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations, California, and claims that the surveillance is a violation of California’s constitution and its privacy laws. The lawsuit seeks to require police to get a warrant in order to search Flock’s license plate system. The lawsuit is one of the highest profile cases challenging Flock; a similar lawsuit in Norfolk, Virginia seeks to get Flock’s network shut down in that city altogether.

“San Jose’s ALPR [automatic license plate reader] program stands apart in its invasiveness,” ACLU of Northern California and EFF lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. “While many California agencies run ALPR systems, few retain the locations of drivers for an entire year like San Jose. Further, it is difficult for most residents of San Jose to get to work, pick up their kids, or obtain medical care without driving, and the City has blanketed its roads with nearly 500 ALPRs.”

The lawsuit argues that San Jose’s Flock cameras “are an invasive mass surveillance technology” that “collect[s] driver locations en masse.”

“Most drivers are unaware that San Jose’s Police Department is tracking their locations and do not know all that their saved location data can reveal about their private lives and activities,” it adds. The city of San Jose currently has at least 474 ALPR cameras, up from 149 at the end of 2023; according to data from the city, more than 2.6 million vehicles were tracked using Flock in the month of October alone. The lawsuit states that Flock ALPRs are stationed all over the city, including “around highly sensitive locations including clinics, immigration centers, and places of worship. For example, three ALPR cameras are positioned on the roads directly outside an immigration law firm.”

Andrew Crocker, surveillance litigation director for the EFF, told 404 Media in a phone call that “it’s fair to say that anyone driving in San Jose is likely to have their license plates captured many times a day. That pervasiveness is important.”
DeFlock's map of San Jose's ALPRsA zoomed in look at San Jose
A search of DeFlock, a crowdsourced map of ALPR deployments around the country, shows hundreds of cameras in San Jose spaced essentially every few blocks around the city. The map is not exhaustive.

The lawsuit argues that warrantless searches of these cameras are illegal under the California constitution’s search and seizure clause, which Crocker said “has been interpreted to be even stronger than the Fourth Amendment,” as well as other California privacy laws. The case is part of a broader backlash against Flock as it expands around the United States. 404 Media’s reporting has shown that the company collects millions of records from around the country, and that it has made its national database of car locations available to local cops who have in turn worked with ICE. Some of those searches have violated California and Illinois law, and have led to reforms from the company. Crocker said that many of these problems will be solved if police simply need to get a warrant to search the system.

“Our legal theory and the remedy we’re seeking is quite simple. We think they need a warrant to search these databases,” he said. “The warrant requirement is massive and should help in terms of preventing these searches because they will have to be approved by a judge.” The case in Norfolk is ongoing. San Jose Police Department and Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Court records show that the narrative Flock and a Texas Sheriff's Office has told the public isn't the whole story, and that police were conducting a 'death investigation' into the abortion.

Court records show that the narrative Flock and a Texas Sheriffx27;s Office has told the public isnx27;t the whole story, and that police were conducting a x27;death investigationx27; into the abortion.#Flock #Abortion

Flock's automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras are in more than 5,000 communities around the U.S. Local police are doing lookups in the nationwide system for ICE.

Flockx27;s automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras are in more than 5,000 communities around the U.S. Local police are doing lookups in the nationwide system for ICE.#News #ICE #Surveillance #Flock

"It is functionally impossible for people to drive anywhere without having their movements tracked, photographed, and stored in an AI-assisted database that enables the warrantless surveillance of their every move. This civil rights lawsuit seeks to end this dragnet surveillance program."#Surveillance #Flock