What are Flock Surveillance Cameras? Have you heard of them?

Flock Safety is a Georgia-based surveillance technology company started by Garrett Langley, Matt Feury, and Paige Todd. Langley, the current CEO, has a history of selling tech startups. Flock Safety is his latest project and one of many Surveillance Camera companies, including Axon, Vigilant Solutions (a Motorola company), Genetec, PlateSmart, Innova Systems, Rekor, ELSAG, Perceptics, and Jenoptik. These companies sell law enforcement on one common idea: improved crime solutions.

Flock Surveillance Cameras use Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs), Pan-Tilt & Zoom cameras, and Automated AI-Powered Flock Drones to capture license plates, locations, and timestamps. Law enforcement can use Flock’s AI-driven software to investigate and prevent crime.

On June 30, 2026, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors (ACBOS) voted 3-2 in favor of a $2.4 million contract extension with Flock Safety, in spite of community opposition. Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez asked for the extension so her department could work to the best of its ability, while asserting her position as “a good partner” who had “conducted extensive community outreach to accommodate public input into the new contract.”

Supervisors Nate Miley, D-4; Lena Tam, D-3; and David Haubert, D-1, supported the new three-part contract along with small business owners. Haubert and Miley stated that public safety benefits, especially in unincorporated communities, outweighed any data privacy concerns. In addition, Haubert said, “These cameras are meant to keep us safe. I don’t believe that they’re widely used by ICE.” Supervisors Elisa Marquez, D-2, and Nikki Fortunato Bas, D-5, voted against the new contract, wanting improved safeguards for privacy and data security.

Flock Surveillance Cameras Close Up of a Flock Camera — Photo Credit: Deflock

Currently, there are more than 500 Flock Surveillance Cameras in Alameda County. This all sounds harmless enough, right? You may be thinking, ‘I’m not a criminal, so why should I care if they follow me around?’ But, with few regulations and a lack of oversight on how law enforcement can use data and images collected, numerous breaches of our Right to Privacy have occurred. States, counties, and cities are discovering that Flock Surveillance Cameras do more than just read license plates.

In fact, their system creates digital fingerprints for every car that passes a surveillance camera. These fingerprints include license plate numbers, the makes, models, and years of vehicles, as well as any scratches or identifying markers like bumper stickers or magnets. The fingerprints are then uploaded to a national database that any law enforcement agency with a Flock contract can access, like the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department.

According to Flock, their surveillance cameras “do not collect personal information, facial recognition, or anything tied to individuals. Data and footage is encrypted throughout their entire lifecycle.” However, independent research has shown that the surveillance cameras do not automatically delete images or videos triggered by motion that don’t include a vehicle. Photos and videos are not automatically encrypted, making them accessible via the device and online.

This lack of guardrails makes it far too easy for law enforcement to know where you worship, who rides around with you, what protests you attend, even where you go to grab a quick bite to eat.

404 Media, through an anonymous source, revealed that ICE has accessed Flock’s database more than 4,000 times in national and statewide immigration searches – even though they don’t have a contract. Public records requested from the Danville, Illinois Police Department show Flock searches from all around the country. NOTE: For each query, a “reason” must be entered. Officers from across the country entered reasons such as Immigration, ICE, ICE+ERO, Illegal Immigration, and ICE Warrant.

ICE isn’t the only one accessing these databases illegally. Kansas Police used them to hunt down someone who wrote a critical op-ed about them. Colorado Police have used them to wrongfully accuse a woman of theft because the AI algorithm didn’t work properly. The number of wrongly flagged cars is growing.

Officers in Georgia, Texas, and Wisconsin were caught using the cameras to stalk exes. A FORMER South Carolina lieutenant admitted to using the city-owned cameras to monitor his wife. Flock cameras were misused for abortion law enforcement.

Federal agencies misused Flock Surveillance Cameras in San Francisco this year, even though California’s ALPR Privacy Act prohibits sharing plate data with federal or state agencies. A class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco in February alleges that the city’s Flock cameras had over 1.6 million queries in seven months from agencies including ICE, CBP, the FBI, and the ATF. SF has turned off access and opened an internal review.

In an imperfect system with imperfect people operating it, some terrible actors have access.

Flock Surveillance Cameras Flock Camera Attached to a Traffic Light Pole — Photo Credit: Deflock

Speaking of access, YouTube Educator Ben Jordan has found more than 47 security issues with Flock Surveillance Cameras. With access to the dark web and a little tech know-how, law enforcement contracts with Flock can be purchased online.

The cameras can be easily hacked and logged into by simply pressing a button on the back of the device. Once they are set up as hubs, you can use them as gateways to the Flock Safety Database to view camera feeds and recordings. You can even install your own recording software on the camera, which could provide you with a live stream of it.

Getting even more nerdy, tech-savvy criminals can easily hack into cameras using a device called a “Rubber Ducky.” This tool is a USB device that allows hackers access to the system inside the device. They can do all sorts of things like install apps, send the camera feed to a private server, and even replace recordings. This should automatically make anything they find inadmissible in court. However, there’s more! Flock doesn’t even require police to set up 2FA logins, meaning ‘honeypot traps’ or malware scams can be easily executed using Flock Surveillance Cameras.

Flock Surveillance Cameras promise safety, but like all technology, they bring vulnerabilities. Weighing the light vs the dark here, we have to ask ourselves: “Do these cameras make a difference in public safety?” Flock Safety would have you think so.

A Flock Safety internal research team claims their cameras have helped lower crime in the United States by 10%, with more than 700,000 crimes solved using Flock. That should mean crime rates are going down in every county where they are implemented. Spoiler alert: you are correct! The crime rate hasn’t dropped dramatically.

The numbers in California show us the truth.

Fremont installed Surveillance Cameras in 2017. The vehicle theft rate fell, and more cars were being recovered. However, by 2022, the theft rate hit an all-time high with the Surveillance Cameras still intact.
Vallejo installed Surveillance Cameras in 2015. By 2022, auto theft was higher than before the Surveillance Cameras were installed.
Surveillance Cameras were installed in Bakersfield in 2019, and auto theft…you guessed it… hit an all-time high – the highest rate in the United States in 2021.
Flock even claims responsibility for the drop in the vehicle theft rate in Vacaville. However, they cite a drop in vehicle theft from 2018 to 2022, before Surveillance Cameras were installed. The theft rate rose from 160 to 179 per 100,000 between 2018 and 2022.

Finding studies that directly relate to Flock actually solving crimes is difficult, if not impossible. There might be a conspiracy theory waiting for a Netflix documentarian to dig it up. In the meantime, we shouldn’t speculate.

Flock Surveillance Cameras a Flock Camera on a Pole with a Solar Panel Attached — Photo Credit: Deflock

The point is that Surveillance Cameras aren’t making a positive difference. Flock added AI to increase their efficacy, but we only have a study THEY conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness. So how does all of this affect you?

We already know that there are more than 500 Flock cameras in Alameda County. You can actually find them all right here. Deflock is an organization actively fighting Flock Safety in courts and in the court of public opinion.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to extend the Flock Safety contract on June 30, 2026. Eden Area Indivisible, along with many other local residents were in the room when the discussions were happening. They voted 3-2 in favor of a $2.4 million contract extension with Flock Safety. That’s $2.4 million of your tax dollars used to supply local police with cameras for their spy network. The contract is set through December 2027. The specific Supervisors who voted to spy on all of the residents they are meant to represent include Supervisor Nate Miley, who represents District 4 (Parts of Oakland, Pleasanton, Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, El Portal Ridge, Fairmont Terrace, Fairview, Hill Crest Knolls, and a portion of Sunol), Lena Tam who represents District 3 (parts of Oakland, San Lorenzo and Hayward Acres), and David Haubert, District 1 (parts of Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, Fremont, and parts of Sunol).

According to The Pleasanton Weekly (Tanya Gokhale, Bay City News), Supervisors Elisa Marquez, D-2, and Nikki Fortunato Bas, D-5, requested more time to review the extension and advocate for improved safeguards for privacy and data security. They voted against the extension contract.

Flock Surveillance Cameras a Different Flock Camera Model Attached to a Pole — Photo Credit: Deflock

Surveillance Cameras are not new, but the introduction of AI and the “smartening” of our surveillance state add too many vulnerabilities to be worth any level of safety they might provide. It’s like we’re running into a tsunami to avoid a fire. Surveillance Cameras simply aren’t worth the risk of forfeiting our First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments – all of which include some level of Right to Privacy.

So what can we do about it? The answer is simple: remember their names: Nate Miley, Lena Tam, and David Haubert. They must be voted out as soon as they possibly can. Lena Tam is up for reelection this year in 2026. Unfortunately, Nate Miley and David Haubert have another 2 years before we can vote them out. It is important to remember that they work for us, and if we are unsatisfied with their work, fire them and hire someone new.

Another thing we can do is pack the house, every meeting, to make it an issue they KNOW we are upset about. Showing public disdain for their vote is one way to get them to do the right thing. Lastly, sign up for our weekly newsletter where we keep you up to date on what’s happening and actions you can take to make a difference in your community. Other cities have been successful in removing Flock cameras including Santa Cruz being the first, Santa Clara County, Denver, Co, two towns in Connecticut, and Columbia Heights, MN.

We CAN fight this, we MUST fight this.