Why surveillance cameras face a revolt in US towns?
The head of Flock, a maker and operator of surveillance cameras and licence plate readers that works with a range of clients in the United States, issued an apology this month after Washington Post reported that multiple law enforcement officers had abused his product network, with at least one case involving an officer who misused Flock to stalk his ex-partner through her car’s licence plates.
Across the U.S., anger is mounting against the surveillance camera firm, with critics going so far as to disrupt or even destroy the Flock cameras in their communities.
How do Flock cameras work?
Founded in 2017, Flock developed its business with help of a two-way strategy: the sale of surveillance hardware, as well as surveillance-as-a-service subscriptions. Flock products include licence plate reader (LPR) cameras, video cameras, mobile security trailers, audio detection devices, drones, and software offerings. Instead of just buying and using a single camera, clients can join the Flock network and enable (optional) law enforcement access.
Due to this strategy, Flock’s devices can help police officers collect data across multiple counties, along with more cameras, to detect incidents ranging from stolen cars to gun shootings. The company’s numbers certainly impress. According to its 2026 factsheet, over 2,800 crimes were solved weekly with Flock technology, while over 2,000 missing people have been located. Flock reported that it has partnered with over 6,000 “communities” across 49 U.S. states, as well as “thousands” of law enforcement agencies.
What caused the outrage against Flock cameras?
There are a number of reasons uniting Americans who are against Flock. These range from company’s reputational challenges and misuse of its Flock cameras, to general anger over mass surveillance technologies. CEO Garrett Langley made headlines last year when he referred to a critic’s anti-Flock advocacy organisation (called DeFlock) as “terroristic”. He apologised for his comments this July, and promised to improve company’s responses to public concerns.
Still, Washington Post report in August that covered incidents where police officers misused Flock data to stalk women has added yet more fuel to fire. Soon afterwards, Flock announced that it was updating its safeguards and cutting its default ALPR data retention period to seven days, unless legally required to keep images for longer.On its “Facts vs Fiction” page, Flock noted that it does not carry out facial recognition, predictive policing, or demographic profiling. Flock stated that it did not contract with the U.S. agency ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) or tech firm Palantir, both of which are associated with mass surveillance. Even so, media outlets have identified Flock cameras as being AI-powered. U.S. lawmakers have also raised questions about possibility of ICE accessing Flock data.
Despite its outreach attempts, Flock is still facing public fury. One reason for this was a May 2025 report which alleged that Texas officials had used thousands of cameras in the Flock network to track down a woman who had an abortion, as part of an investigation. Flock dismissed these reports last year and stated it does not have access to this data. However, later findings by Electronic Frontier Foundation advocacy group support original report.
While verdict was pending, a simplistic version of events entered public consciousness: social media users began claiming that Flock had worked with police to enforce Texan abortion ban and target a woman. In recent weeks, protesters have expressed their anger against Flock by blocking cameras, reporting them to DeFlock in order to map them, pressuring clients to end their Flock contracts, or even destroying Flock cameras. For example, a trending Instagram Reel with over 2 million views and 2,69,000 likes taught watchers how to dismantle a Flock camera without being detected.Furthermore, U.S. media outlets reported that in July, the Los Angeles Police Department would not renew its original contract with Flock, due to “serious concerns” regarding civil liberties, privacy, and data being collected.
Does India face a similar dilemma?
Across Indian cities, more law enforcement bodies are experimenting with AI-powered cameras in order to catch traffic rules violators through their licence plates. While these automated solutions seem encouraging, there has been a lack of human follow-up when it comes to penalising offenders. Another challenge is in ensuring that the data on everyday citizens – including facial recognition data securely and privately.
Meanwhile, use of CCTV cameras by both police departments and private citizens is rampant, but surveillance efforts are fragmented. Unlike with Flock, it is hard to share private camera feeds with police in real time and derive useful insights. Since they are owned by everyday users rather than leased by a dedicated company, these surveillance cameras are often unreliable and poorly maintained.
However, Indian citizens have become more vocal in calling out use of smart glasses and AI-powered surveillance vans by police, such as during the Cockroach Janta Party protests in Delhi in July. The potential misuse of facial recognition data to harass lawful protesters is a serious concern.