The short version
- Dozens of municipalities have canceled contracts with Flock Safety this year amid privacy backlash, yet many are replacing the technology with systems from competitors like Axon.
- Law enforcement agencies cite improved data control and existing relationships with new vendors as reasons for switching, while critics argue the underlying surveillance dragnet remains unchanged.
- Activists express frustration over limited public input during these transitions, noting that some cities continue monitoring even after official contract terminations due to slow removal or private sector installations.
Residents in Longmont, Colorado, initially viewed the city council’s decision to let its contract with Flock Safety lapse as a significant victory against mass surveillance. The move aligned with a growing national movement opposing automated license plate readers (ALPRs), which critics argue create an unjustified dragnet on private citizens. However, that sense of triumph was short-lived. Within months, lawmakers approved a new vendor to install similar tracking devices on city streets, effectively maintaining the level of monitoring despite the change in corporate provider.
Flock Safety has faced intense scrutiny for operating more than 120,000 cameras across the United States, scanning license plates billions of times monthly. Privacy advocates contend that these systems capture data on individuals not suspected of crimes and facilitate warrantless tracking. Concerns extend beyond general privacy violations to specific abuses, including allegations that officers have used the technology to stalk romantic interests and that data has been shared with federal immigration enforcement agencies. In response to mounting pressure, Flock recently announced policy updates regarding auditing, data retention, and sharing, though many critics deem these measures insufficient.
The backlash against Flock has resulted in at least 56 municipalities deactivating, canceling, or rejecting contracts with the company this year, according to the advocacy group DeFlock. Yet, the removal of Flock cameras does not always mean an end to surveillance. In some cases, new vendors quickly step in to fill the void. In others, private companies retain their own camera networks on premises regardless of municipal contract changes. Occasionally, Flock itself fails to remove equipment promptly, leading some cities to resort to covering lenses with trash bags to halt data collection.
In Longmont, the transition from Flock to Axon occurred rapidly. Axon, a major law enforcement technology firm known for producing Tasers and body cameras, has capitalized on Flock’s public relations challenges. The company has secured contracts in at least seven municipalities across five states following Flock’s departures. Axon executives have suggested that their track record on privacy and ethics influenced these decisions, positioning themselves as a more responsible alternative to their competitor.
Local law enforcement officials in Longmont highlighted specific advantages of switching to Axon. Assistant Chief Phil Piotrowski noted that Axon’s approach offers greater control over data sharing compared to Flock’s previous policies, which allowed broader access by external government agencies. Police also emphasized their long-standing relationship with Axon, which already supplies them with various technological tools and evidence storage solutions. These operational familiarity and perceived privacy safeguards were central to the decision-making process.
Despite these assurances, privacy advocates remain skeptical. Chad Marlow of the ACLU described Axon’s strategy as opportunistic, suggesting the company waited for Flock to face public backlash before moving in. Critics argue that swapping vendors does not address the fundamental issues raised by widespread license plate tracking. The core concern remains the ability of authorities to monitor vehicle movements without individualized suspicion or warrants, regardless of which corporation owns the hardware.
The speed of Longmont’s transition left little room for public debate. Residents like Andrew Palmer expressed disappointment that they were not given adequate opportunity to question law enforcement claims about Axon’s data practices before the vote. Activists noted that discussions regarding data ownership and transparency occurred only after the motion had already passed. This lack of engagement has fueled frustration among those who sought meaningful reform rather than a simple change in branding.
As municipalities navigate these transitions, the broader implications for civil liberties remain unclear. While some cities have implemented additional requirements for data protection and planned evaluations, the persistence of ALPR technology suggests that surveillance infrastructure is deeply entrenched. The shift from Flock to Axon may offer incremental improvements in policy, but it does not eliminate the capacity for mass tracking. For now, the debate continues over whether such monitoring serves public safety or infringes on fundamental rights.
The situation underscores a complex dynamic in modern policing technology. Law enforcement agencies seek tools that enhance investigative capabilities while managing public relations risks. Meanwhile, privacy advocates push for stricter limits on data collection and usage. The outcome in places like Longmont indicates that without comprehensive legislative action or robust community oversight, changes in vendor contracts may result in superficial adjustments rather than substantive protections for residents.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian US↗Their cities dropped Flock surveillance cameras. They’re still being watched
