Cities and towns across the United States are reevaluating the use of AI-powered license plate reading cameras from Flock Safety as public concern over surveillance, privacy, and transparency continues to grow. Packed city council meetings from Washington state to Massachusetts reflect a broader national debate over how far communities are willing to go in adopting advanced surveillance technologies for public safety.
The latest flashpoint occurred in Staunton, Virginia, a town of about 25,000 residents in the Shenandoah Valley. In 2024, the Staunton Police Department installed six Flock cameras designed to capture and analyze license plate data. While police leaders cited law enforcement benefits, resident opposition intensified after a response from Flock’s chief executive drew sharp criticism.
Garrett Langley, CEO of Flock Safety, addressed concerns raised by residents in an unsolicited email to Staunton Police Chief Jim Williams, framing the criticism as part of a broader campaign against law enforcement. “Let’s call this what it is: Flock, and the law enforcement agencies we partner with, are under coordinated attack,” Langley wrote, attributing opposition to “the same activist groups who want to defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness.”
The message had the opposite effect of what the company may have intended. Rather than easing tensions, Langley’s remarks prompted city leaders to reassess the partnership. Staunton ultimately joined a growing list of municipalities canceling contracts with Flock Safety amid public backlash.
Chief Williams pushed back against Langley’s characterization, emphasizing that local concerns were rooted in civic engagement rather than hostility toward law enforcement. “What we are seeing here is a group of local citizens who are raising concerns that we could be potentially surveilling private citizens, residents and visitors and using the data for nefarious purposes,” Williams wrote in response. He added that residents were exercising their rights to seek answers from officials and elected leaders. “In short,” Williams said, “it is democracy in action.”
Flock Safety has grown rapidly in recent years. More than 80,000 cameras are estimated to be deployed nationwide, with roughly 5,000 law enforcement agencies and 1,000 corporations among its customers. Most of the cameras rely on artificial intelligence to identify and track license plates.
Scrutiny of the company intensified after a YouTube video revealed that live feeds from more than 60 Flock cameras were accessible via the open internet. The video has been viewed more than 953,000 times. Its creator, technologist Benn Jordan, later expressed concern about Langley’s email and its potential implications. Jordan said the message appeared impersonal and may have been sent widely from a “no_reply” address, suggesting a mass communication to police agencies.
Jordan also raised safety concerns, noting that he had previously experienced police visits after documenting Flock cameras. He questioned how law enforcement might respond if critics were framed as part of a “lawless coordinated attack.”
When contacted for comment about Langley’s email and Staunton’s contract cancellation, Flock Safety responded only by directing inquiries to a page on its website outlining the company’s privacy and ethics guidelines.
Despite the controversy, Staunton officials acknowledged that the cameras had delivered tangible results. Williams said the technology helped officers locate missing and wanted individuals, recover stolen vehicles, and identify crime suspects. Nevertheless, after discussions among the police chief, city manager, and city council, the city opted to terminate the contract.
In a statement, Staunton officials said Langley’s remarks did not align with local values. While acknowledging the police department’s reported successes, the city said it “does not agree with the assessment as detailed by the CEO of Flock Safety.” The city is now coordinating with the company to shut down and remove all cameras.
Staunton’s decision mirrors actions taken elsewhere. In Flagstaff, Arizona, the city council voted unanimously in December to end its contract with Flock after weeks of resident opposition, despite police efforts to explain safeguards around camera use. During public comment, resident Jan Carlile said the potential privacy implications outweighed the benefits, especially given advances in AI and broader political concerns. She noted that while cameras once seemed uncontroversial, “we are in a new era.”
Other cities have cited trust and transparency issues. Cambridge, Massachusetts, initially paused use of 16 cameras before canceling its contract entirely after learning that two additional cameras had been installed without the city’s knowledge. A city spokesperson said concerns were substantiated and described the installations as a breach of trust.
In Evanston, Illinois, officials terminated their agreement and deactivated 19 cameras, only to discover that Flock had begun reinstalling cameras without apparent authorization. The city responded with a cease-and-desist order, after which Flock said it would remove them. Around the same time, an audit by the Illinois Secretary of State found that Flock had violated state law by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection access to camera data, a charge the company disputed.
Washington state has also seen widespread pushback. Redmond and Lynnwood deactivated cameras in November while reviewing contracts. Mountlake Terrace canceled its agreement unanimously, and Olympia ended its pilot program and removed 15 cameras in December.
Together, these cases highlight a widening clash between the perceived benefits of AI-assisted policing and growing public concern over privacy, oversight, and corporate accountability. As more communities reconsider their agreements, the debate over surveillance technology and democratic consent appears far from settled.
%20(1).jpg)
%20(1).png)
