Across the country, Democrats and Republicans are on the offensive against Flock cameras as community backlash mounts against the AI-powered surveillance tool.
Democrats on the campaign trail have increasingly criticized the technology, citing both surveillance and privacy concerns. Multiple high-profile candidates, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, have come out in support of banning the use of Flock cameras by law enforcement.
“It’s become a topic du jour for people who are really anxious about the extent to which government officials can surveil their movements,” said Melodi Dincer, a lecturer at University of California–Los Angeles Law School and affiliated fellow at the UCLA Institute of Technology Law and Policy.
Though Dincer said she was surprised by how prominent of an issue Flock cameras had become, she wasn’t surprised it had made its way to the campaign trail. With how ubiquitous conversations about privacy and technology had become, “I don’t know if politicians can actually avoid these topics anymore,” she said.
Flock cameras are AI-powered surveillance devices built by Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based technology company, that record and catalogue passing vehicles. The cameras are a popular type of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) system used by law enforcement officers across the United States.
The cameras can be a convenient tool for law enforcement officers since it makes vehicle data easily accessible and searchable for criminal investigations, Florian Schaub, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Information, said.
A Flock spokesperson also emphasized the usefulness of the company’s technology. “Flock’s technology is an important public safety tool for law enforcement agencies across America, helping officers solve serious crimes and find missing people,” the spokesperson said to The Caucus.
“The problem is that this convenience comes at the price of putting the whole community under surveillance,” Schaub said. “You’re not just recording license plate numbers from criminals, but you’re also recording license plate numbers from everyone else who lives in the community.”
This has raised concerns about unconstitutional surveillance in communities where this technology is used. This worry, alongside prominent stories of officer misuse of the cameras, has led to community-led grassroots campaigns across U.S. towns and cities to stop the use of these cameras. According to Reem Suleiman, a senior campaign director at Fight for the Future, an advocacy organization that fights against technological surveillance, over 350 institutions, including cities and sheriff agencies, have terminated, suspended, or declined to renew contracts with Flock Safety over the past few years due to intense community backlash.
“This feels like it’s caught on fire exponentially,” Suleiman said.
Both Democrats and Republicans have raised concerns about Flock cameras in the past year, especially in wake of increased public scrutiny of the technology following reports of their use by police officers on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. In Pennsylvania, Shapiro and his Republican opponent, Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity, have both said that they support bans.
“This is not something in the public interest,” Shapiro said in reference to Flock cameras at a public safety event in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. “I think law enforcement needs to have tools to keep communities safe. Flock cameras are not a tool that I support.”
In Wisconsin, both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor have criticized the technology — as have William Lawrence and GOP incumbent Rep. Tom Barrett, who are running to represent Michigan’s 7th congressional district. In Florida, the Democratic Senate candidate, State Rep. Angie Nixon, has also spoken out against Flock cameras. El-Sayed has also criticized the cameras and has used his stance to mount a specific appeal to voters.
“If you believe, like me, that you shouldn’t be surveilled, because you’re driving along the street, then I hope I can earn your support,” El-Sayed said in a video posted on Facebook. “Because we’ve got to stand up to this massive surveillance apparatus that is being built behind closed doors and behind our backs.”
Both Dincer and Suleiman, who have worked on issues related to technology and privacy for years, said they were surprised by how much public opposition had mounted in response to Flock cameras. They believe that Flock cameras allowed Americans to better understand the constitutional concerns posed by ALPR systems and other technologies used for surveillance.
But politicians and candidates’ focus on Flock as a result of voter concerns could risk leaving larger concerns posed by technologies similar to the cameras unaddressed.
“I think a lot of [politicians] may be hyper fixating on Flock,” Suleiman said. “It’s very similar to the bad apple argument, that this is just a bad surveillance vendor.”
Suleiman said Flock was just one of many tools that allow for mass surveillance. Both she and Dincer hope that politicians and political candidates will eventually go beyond their promises of banning Flock cameras or discouraging their use by law enforcement and take legislative action to put stronger protections in place for Americans against technological surveillance.
“I do have some hope that all of this focus on Flock could actually invite a broader conversation about other ALPR providers more generally,” Dincer said.
The Flock spokesperson said the organization supported “thoughtful, bipartisan legislation that puts strong privacy, transparency, and accountability guardrails in place.” But they also emphasized the importance of “preserving law enforcement’s ability to use technology responsibly to keep people safe.”