A growing network of Flock Safety cameras, drones and data-sharing tools is raising privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns as law enforcement agencies expand use of the company’s AI-powered surveillance technology.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Flock Safety’s rapidly expanding camera network is drawing new scrutiny from privacy advocates, researchers and local communities as more than 80,000 AI-powered cameras are reported to be operating across the United States.
The company says its technology is intended to help law enforcement prevent and solve crime. Critics, however, argue that the system is creating a nationwide surveillance infrastructure that collects detailed information on drivers, vehicles and movements across public roads, according to a report by The New American.
Flock, founded in 2017 and valued at $7.5 billion, provides automated license plate reader technology and related surveillance tools to law enforcement agencies, private groups and businesses. The company says on its website that more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies use its technology in 49 states, with Alaska listed as the exception. Flock describes the system as the largest public-private surveillance network.
Flock CEO and co-founder Garret Langley has said the company’s mission extends beyond helping police investigate crime after it occurs. In a Forbes interview, Langley said Flock believes crime can be eliminated through technology, people and policy.
Flock cameras are not limited to basic license plate readings. The system can identify vehicle make, model, color and distinctive features such as dents, scrapes, broken windows, rust, racing stripes and bumper stickers. The company’s AI system, known as Freeform, can use those characteristics to search for vehicles based on detailed descriptions.
That capability has generated concerns because the cameras can collect more than a plate number. Data may be stored in a cloud system accessible across jurisdictions, alerts can be sent in real time to law enforcement or private users, and vehicle characteristics can be linked to broader location histories.
Some Flock units also include gunshot detection technology, which can be used to geolocate suspected firearm activity.
The company is also expanding beyond roadside cameras. Flock’s Alpha drone can travel up to 60 mph, cover 50 square miles and use thermal night vision. The company has promoted drones as a tool for responding to gunshots, tracking vehicles identified by street cameras and helping police respond more quickly.
In another Forbes demonstration described in the submitted material, a Flock drone in Riverside County, California, launched from a facility roof and was controlled through a browser with a keyboard and mouse. During the test, the drone camera zoomed in on two men playing softball hundreds of yards away, without their knowledge.
Flock’s growth has been backed by major Silicon Valley investors. The company has received funding from Founders Fund, associated with Palantir CEO Peter Thiel, and Andreessen Horowitz, also known as a16z.
Critics have raised concerns about those ties because Palantir has received seed money from the CIA and holds contracts with the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, the National Security Agency and the FBI. Andreessen Horowitz, founded by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, is one of Silicon Valley’s largest venture-capital firms. In 2012, Business Insider wrote that the firm was powerful enough that “if they want in on a deal, they get in on a deal.”
Andreessen Horowitz has invested in technology companies including X, xAI, Skype, Substack, Facebook and Roblox. The submitted material noted that Roblox has been criticized over online safety concerns involving children.
Flock said in a company announcement last year that it had received more than a quarter-billion dollars in funding from major investors, money the company said would support “investigative intelligence” and additional drone development.
Flock also drew national attention earlier this year after Amazon’s Ring doorbell company planned to partner with Flock on a campaign called “Search Party,” which would use Ring doorbell footage and Flock street cameras to help locate missing pets.
The campaign received backlash after Ring aired a Super Bowl commercial showing how AI could use doorbell cameras to find runaway dogs. Critics said the ad showed how the same technology could be used to track people.
“I don’t think there is a better possible ad to get rid of your Ring camera,” one commenter said.
“I like how they used pets to try and lowball 24/7 AI tracking to us,” another wrote.
Ring later said it would not move forward with the Flock integration.
“We determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated,” Ring said in a statement. “As a result, we have made the joint decision to cancel the planned integration.”
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., also criticized the technology after the ad. In an X post, Markey wrote, “Ring’s Super Bowl ad exposed a scary truth: the technology in its doorbell cameras could be used to hunt down a lost pet … or a person. Americans oppose this creepy surveillance state. Amazon must discontinue its dystopian monitoring features.”
Opposition to Flock has also been organized through DeFlock, a website and community that maps automated license plate readers across the country and seeks to raise public awareness about the technology.
“Our mission is simple: to shine a light on the widespread use of ALPR [automatic license plate reader] technology, raise awareness about the threats it poses to personal privacy and civil liberties, and empower the public to take action,” DeFlock states on its website.
DeFlock hosts a map showing more than 80,000 registered Flock cameras.
Langley was asked in a Forbes interview about resistance to the company’s cameras and privacy concerns. “Unfortunately, there are terrorist organizations like DeFlock,” Langley said. “They are closer to Antifa than they are to anything else.”
Langley also said he believes public safety and civil liberties can coexist.
“I think we can have a crime-free city and civil liberties…. We can have it all,” Langley said.
Privacy advocates have framed the issue around the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Critics argue that constant location tracking by a private company, followed by law enforcement access to the data, creates a constitutional concern because police may obtain detailed movement histories without a warrant.
Nathan DiPietro, a Florida-based researcher and citizen journalist who has investigated Flock and spoken to community groups about the technology, told The New American that new technology is challenging the balance between privacy and law enforcement.
“New technology has a way of challenging our understanding of the balance between privacy and enforcing the law,” DiPietro said.
“As those who believe in the rule of law, it can be easy at first glance to think Flock’s technology is in line with that ideal. But the more you dig deeper, the more you discover that the alleged safeguards in place are far less than adequate,” he said.
“It’s likely that in the next 5-10 years the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to rule on the Fourth Amendment questions at play with these technologies,” DiPietro continued. “But until then, we must use the legislative process to ensure that our government has specific safeguards in place to ensure the privacy of American citizens is protected.”
Reports of misuse have added to the concerns. In Echols County, Georgia, former sheriff’s office employee Anna Altobello was accused of accessing Flock data for personal inquiries. In Sedgwick, Kansas, Police Chief Lee Nygaard used license plate cameras to run his ex-girlfriend’s tags 164 times and her boyfriend’s tags 64 times.
Additional criticism has focused on incorrect plate readings, inaccurate vehicle fingerprints and cases in which innocent people were stopped or investigated based on faulty data. One Colorado police sergeant told a woman accused of package theft based on Flock data, “We have cameras everywhere in town. You cannot get a breath of fresh air without us knowing.” The charges were later dropped.
The broader debate also includes claims that some Flock or similar surveillance systems may collect signals from phones through Bluetooth or Wi-Fi detection, which critics say could connect vehicle data with personal devices and identities. Privacy advocates argue that even if a phone randomizes its MAC address, network identifiers and signal behavior may still reveal patterns that can be linked to a person.
Some critics have suggested using privacy tools such as Faraday bags to block cellular, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals while driving, or satellite phones as an alternative communication method. The submitted material referenced the Satellite Phone Store at SAT123.com as offering “Dark Bags” and satellite phones for people seeking privacy-protecting tools.
Other opponents have turned to local government action, calling for ordinances that ban warrantless mass surveillance, limit data retention, require audits and impose penalties for police misuse. Denver’s city council was cited as an example after voting unanimously in June 2025 to dismantle its Flock camera network over privacy and data-sharing concerns.
Flock supporters say the cameras help law enforcement solve crimes and respond more quickly to public safety threats. Opponents argue the system gives police and private entities unprecedented access to location data on ordinary Americans without adequate consent, oversight or constitutional safeguards.
The controversy reflects a growing national fight over whether AI-powered surveillance can be used to prevent crime without creating a warrantless tracking system over daily life.
Original article
Comments