A quietly expanding network of high-tech license-plate reader cameras is spreading across Southwest Florida’s neighborhoods and roadways—promising crime resolution while delivering the menace of a digital panopticon. The private corporation behind the system, Flock Safety, claims the cameras help solve crimes, but regardless of the validity of those claims, Southwest Florida police and sheriff’s departments are participating in Flock’s creation of a nationwide mass surveillance system that is already being challenged in court as unconstitutional.

​

Flock cameras mark a shift from traditional CCTV to cloud-based “license-plate reading” hardware that logs every passing vehicle’s plate, make, model, color, timestamp and location. The cameras then upload the data to a server and create a “vehicle fingerprint,” which allows anyone with access to the Flock system to track everywhere that vehicle goes, all without a warrant.

​

How Flock monitors the herd

 

Unlike red light or speed cameras, which are triggered by specific violations, Flock cameras record every vehicle that drives by. The information is uploaded (typically via a cellular network) to Flock’s cloud-platform.  

​

Where these cameras are installed, every car — every citizen’s journey — is captured. Flock has created a network of more than 5,000 policing agencies and tens of thousands of camera systems deployed nationwide. The cameras capture billions of vehicle scans each month, creating a vast, searchable map of movement that can be used by state and federal policing agencies to track individuals. 

​

Misuse and Abuse: Troubling Examples

​

Think authorities need probable cause to track you?  Consider the case in Texas where sheriff’s deputies used the Flock system to track and harass a woman who took abortion pills she legally obtained and self-administered. Her partner “reported” her to the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office, and deputies used the Flock system to track the woman, logging as their reason “had an abortion, search for female.” 

​

According to reporting in 404 Media, police have already used the system on behalf of ICE to search out vehicles suspected of being driven by illegal immigrants. 

 

HOAs get into the act

​

Flock markets its cameras to HOAs as well — even offering a “safe list” feature so that residents’ vehicles can be distinguished in the system from non-residents’ vehicles. HOAs can opt to allow the data collected by the cameras in their neighborhoods to be fed into Flock’s nationwide database. 

​

Public oversight of Flock camera systems—both in Florida and nationwide—is minimal and inconsistent. Law enforcement agencies that buy into the Flock system typically write their own internal policies, deciding where cameras go and how long data is stored. The data itself, though owned by the agencies, is hosted and managed by Flock Safety. The company uses that data to build its nationwide network; as a private company it is not subject to open-records laws or the transparency standards that apply to government databases. 

​

Who's watching the Flock watchers?

​

Researchers from the ACLU of Massachusetts, through a broad statewide public-records investigation, found that Flock’s standard contract with police departments appears to grant the company the right to share data with federal and local agencies for ‘investigative purposes,’ even when a department’s internal policy restricts access to its own officers.

​

There is no standardized state or federal regulation governing automated license-plate readers, and rules vary widely across jurisdictions. In Florida, state law sets minimal requirements for data retention and confidentiality but offers no guarantees of transparency or limits on how information can be shared.

​

Civil-liberties groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the ACLU, and Fight for the Future have called for stronger oversight. They’re pushing for public approval before agencies or HOAs install surveillance cameras, independent audits of how the systems are used, and clear rules for how long data is stored and when it must be deleted. Advocates also want annual transparency reports showing who accessed the system and for what purpose.

​

Flock Safety may be the most visible name in this growing surveillance industry, but it’s not the only one shaping the new landscape of mass vehicle tracking. Vigilant Solutions, now owned by Motorola Solutions, operates a comparable nationwide license-plate reader network and markets its system to law enforcement agencies across the country. Like Flock, Vigilant stores and shares billions of plate scans in searchable databases that can be accessed by multiple jurisdictions. Civil-liberties advocates warn that together, these private vendors have built an unregulated surveillance infrastructure that allows government agencies to track anyone, anywhere, without public consent or oversight.

​

Civil Liberties Advocates Push Back

​

Court challenges have already begun. In Virginia a police officer searched license plate data without a warrant—not to prove that defendant Ronnie Church was at the scene of a crime, but merely to try to show he had a “guilty mind.” The local circuit court held this warrantless search violated Church’s Fourth Amendment rights, but this decision was later reversed by the Virginia Court of Appeals. 

​

This summer the City of Austin ended its contract with Flock Safety for its license plate reader program after city leaders cited concerns over privacy and civil liberties. This decision aligns with other municipalities, like San Marcos and Hays County, that have also ended their contracts with Flock Safety due to privacy concerns. 

​

In a letter to Flock Safety Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon noted that he has “determined that Flock cannot live up to its commitment to protect the privacy and security of Oregonians. Abuse of Flock cameras is inevitable, and Flock has made it clear it takes no responsibility to prevent or detect that. For that reason, [the Senator is recommending] that communities that have installed Flock cameras reevaluate that decision.”

​

The Naples Police Department, the Collier County Sheriff’s Office, the Lee County Sheriff’s Office, the Fort Myers Police Department, and the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to inquiries seeking additional information about their use of Flock cameras in Southwest Florida.