Officials in Cambridge, Massachusetts, deactivated 16 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras last week, following a city council vote to pause their use. This action came after reports surfaced that the cameras’ manufacturer, Flock Safety, had been sharing data with federal immigration authorities. Cambridge is now among several cities where the ubiquitous Flock cameras, which are now present in thousands of municipalities nationwide, have recently been taken offline. This wave of deactivations demonstrates a growing public and governmental pushback against the surveillance technology, fueled by concerns over data privacy and the potential for misuse. The actions in these cities suggest a critical reevaluation of the balance between law enforcement’s investigative tools and residents’ civil liberties.
The decision in Cambridge follows similar actions in other jurisdictions. On October 14, Eugene, Oregon, officials disabled 57 cameras after the City Council voted to pause their use due to intense resident backlash. Similarly, Austin, Texas, ended its contract with Flock in June amid comparable public objections, and Evanston, Illinois, deactivated 19 cameras in August. The collective move to halt work with Flock stems from reports of the company sharing local partners’ data with federal immigration authorities, a practice strongly opposed by residents in all cities that have disabled the cameras. A Cambridge City Councilor, Patty Nolan, voiced specific concern over reports that police in Texas allegedly used Flock camera data to track a woman who had a self-administered abortion, noting that councilors were also alarmed by the use of the data for immigration arrests, stating, “Flock data has been used and requisitioned by federal immigration officials for work that I don’t want us to be cooperating on. It’s not our job to do their work.”
While city officials scrutinize the company, police in some jurisdictions are actively fighting to retain the surveillance tool. The police chief in Eugene publicly advocated for the cameras, stating they played a “pivotal role” in solving a series of recent burglaries targeting Asian business owners. Eugene Police Chief Chris Skinner released a prepared statement on October 10 asserting, “The ALPR technology was a critical investigative tool in providing a turning point to help solve this case. This is an example of how this technology can serve victims of crime in a more effective and efficient way.” Conversely, Evanston officials decided to turn off their Flock cameras after a state audit revealed the company had shared city residents’ license plate data with federal authorities, a clear violation of state law. A city press release noted the “deeply troubling” findings of the audit and Flock’s “admission that it failed to establish distinct permissions and protocols to ensure local compliance,” even reporting that officials later had to cover reinstalled cameras with plastic bags to ensure they wouldn’t function.
Currently, Cambridge officials and the City Council are reviewing Flock’s data practices and their contract, with a decision on terminating the agreement expected soon. Councilor Nolan confirmed the vote to pause the contract was unanimous, emphasizing the council’s focus on establishing sufficient guardrails to prevent Flock from sharing the city’s data with outside agencies. Nolan also expressed skepticism about the technology’s effectiveness, noting she had seen no evidence that the use of Flock cameras reduces crime. Simultaneously, a heated debate is underway in Denver, where residents and city councilors are battling Mayor Mike Johnston over plans to continue the city’s existing contract with Flock. City Council Member-at-Large Sarah Parady called the company untrustworthy, expressing concern that police officials were reportedly unaware the company was sharing Denver’s data with law enforcement in outside jurisdictions, a practice especially worrisome given that many women from Texas seek legal abortions in Colorado.
Beyond data sharing, the fundamental nature of the technology raises profound privacy concerns. Parady also worries about federal immigration authorities using Flock data for arrests and strongly opposes the cameras even without outside data sharing, citing how Flock’s AI trains itself to predict travel patterns. She argues that this level of pervasive surveillance fundamentally alters the public’s expectation of privacy, distinguishing it from traditional “plain view searches.” Parady states, “That kind of surveillance is not something that a human mind looking at physical images or looking at a car driving by could do by itself… It’s hard for me to believe that you don’t have a privacy right not to have an algorithm basically track you everywhere that you go.” The ongoing decisions in cities like Cambridge, Eugene, and Denver underscore a national conflict between security promises made by surveillance technology and the deeply held constitutional and privacy rights of residents.
Reference:
