In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that government and law enforcement agencies need to have a warrant to access a person’s location history, as stored/logged by their cellular devices. This decision was a victory for individual rights and privacy, but it’s a victory that is currently being eroded by yet another invasive technological development: automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras and networks. These devices, the best-known of which are likely those tall, ominous-looking Flock cameras, are currently being used to track people’s movements via their vehicles’ license plates, and currently there is no warrant requirement. That’s worrying. Even worse, a recent study from the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that, in thousands and thousands of searches for specific vehicles in Flock camera searches by law enforcement agencies, the reasons for the searches given – as required as part of the search process – were treated as a joke, with responses like “LOL” or “LMAO” or “idk.”
If this makes you feel uncomfortable or angry, that’s probably a healthy response.
Flock and other ALPR cameras have been abused by law enforcement before, in some incidents that are by now fairly well-known. In one especially egregious example, a Kentucky police officer was found to have used Flock cameras to track his ex-girlfriend’s location in over 2,000 separate searches. A Florida police officer used the cameras to stalk an actress, to the point of using the tracking system to find her and pull her over. There are more incidents of stalking, tracking down protesters, and more. It’s clearly a powerful tool with plenty of opportunity for abuse.
The most egregious thing that this EFF analysis of Flock Safety’s search data, obtained through public records, found has to do with the “reason” field in the search inquiry form. This field is used to, presumably, help classify and sort the various justifications for why a law enforcement officer may choose to search for a particular vehicle. The reasons given appear to be just stored in the search database, and do not seem to be parsed for content.
That could be why so many search reasons given are things like “LOL” and “LMAO” or just random keystrokes, or, as the EFF report noted, some “reasons” were just juvenile insults:
Insults and Inappropriate Searches
-
Belton Police Department (Mo.) ran searches (Aug–Sept 2024) for “d*ckhead.” (asterisk/redaction our own)
-
A Manteca Police Department (Ill.) employee ran searches in June 2024 for “sh*thead” (asterisk/redaction our own)
-
A Norton Police Department (Mass.) employee ran searches in December 2024 for “Sexy.”
-
Corona Police Department (Calif.) employees ran searches (2023–2025) for “weird” or “WEIRD KID.”
-
Thornton Police Department (Colo.) employees ran several searches in October 2025 for “driving around being weird.”
-
A Columbus Police Department (Ohio) officer ran searches in 2023 for “idiot.”
Ah yes, the high crime of “driving around being weird.” Or, on the other end of the spectrum, “sexy.” All great uses of a powerful AI-powered camera surveillance system.
In response to these issues, Flock released an update to their software that replaced the “Reason” field with a drop-down menu selection of “Offense Types” which you can see in this video showing what the search UX is like:
This doesn’t really help anything. If anything, it just makes it even easier, as the person searching doesn’t even need to bang out random letters on the keyboard anymore, just grab a random entry from a pull-down menu. If anything, it hides frivolous or predatory or otherwise unethical searches even more than asking the searcher to type in a reason did. It doesn’t do anything to solve the problem other than obfuscating it even more.
The big question here is why should any law enforcement officer be able to track an individual car without just cause or a warrant at all? If it’s not legal to get someone’s location information from a cell phone, why should tracking everywhere their car went be any different? It’s the same thing, just using a different tool.
There should be more effort required to track a person than what these cameras allow, and if these “reason” entries show anything, it’s that there are way too many people using the system who are tracking a person like it’s a frivolous act with no regard to individual privacy. Who the hell wants this?
Sure, these cameras and networks can be helpful in solving all manner of crimes, and can give law enforcement a hugely beneficial tool that will help to better protect and serve citizens when used properly. The help these networks could give for, say, finding kidnapped people or tracking violent offenders could be huge! But, like any powerful tool, you have to be careful and thoughtful about its use.
Where you go is your business, and the ability for anyone in government or law enforcement to track that had damn well better be for reasons more worthy than just boredom or horniness or just because they can. This is a real problem, and it needs to be addressed, for reasons far beyond the LOLz.
Top graphic images: EFF; Flock
The UK has had a sophisticated ANPR system since 1997 with something like 12,000 cameras across the country ding exactly what Flock are doing. However, an independent centralized agency monitors usage and audits it almost monthly. Things like justification, case numbers and outcomes are all looked at. Even something remotely nefarious is flagged and followed up on. Police officers and people from agencies like the DVLA are fired for breaches and in some cases criminally prosecuted for misuse. If law enforcement want this tool then extensive auditing and zero tolerance of abuse should be mandatory. Even one single search not directly related to their job should be punished. There should be zero circumstances where an officer is able to track someone they know without flagging a conflict and if necessary getting a third party to take over.
I’m of the opinion that this should be handled one of two ways. The first is that a judicial warrant is required. The second option is that everyone is given access since tax dollars are being spent all citizens should get access to the system. Once they can track politicians, police cars and other “important” people, I expect the systems would be removed.
Supporters of Flock cameras are always so quick to respond to criticism with statements like “You don’t have anything to worry about if you’ve done nothing wrong!!”
>:(
The motorists who were labeled as “weird” and “sexy” did nothing wrong, and now they have to worry about being stalked by law enforcement. We’ve seen cases of the technology being used in abusive relationship situations, and I’ve read of at least one instance of a cop using license plate readers to track the movements of a pregnant woman who had the audacity to cross state lines. Locally, Raleigh PD admitted that former officers still had access to their camera network. It seems like giving cops unfettered access to Flock cameras and their data turns every citizen into some kind of wrongdoer.
“You don’t have anything to worry about if you’ve done nothing wrong!!”
Ahh yes, I remember this well when “we” protested the Patriot Act…
Patriot Act, DHS, DMCA. That era of legislation has a lot to answer for.
But the terrorist….
Hardware and software surveillance technology has finally been very effectively paired with tech bros and billionaires and sold to localities all across the USA. This is just the beginning of the unregulated surveillance state unless it is deemed illegal/unconstitutional.
It should IMO be unconstitutional for government employees to access this data without a warrant.
It should also IMO be made illegal for companies/people to gather mass amounts of data on everyone unlucky enough to drive past one of their tens of thousands of cameras. Between this and constant data breaches, the data industry needs a severe clampdown.
Preach brother! People are so willing to relinquish their right to privacy in order to feel ‘protected’.
Where have we heard this before?
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”-Benjamin Franklin, way back in 1755.
Checks and balances. Strange how a group of people 250 years ago understand that if you give someone power without oversight that power will be abused, yet we frequently forget that principle.
Those people were naive. They thought that elected representatives would actually care.
They thought they would care because the idea of overthrowing a government was a fresh memory to them. Today it’s just a “thought exercise”.
Actually I think they would be surprised it lasted this long. The threat of corruption was well know by them and sure to be what destroyed the democracy.
They were naive, but I don’t think that’s why. The whole system was set up assuming people would be selfish and protect their own interests. Nobody thought Congress would let the President usurp their power, but here we are.
And we can see the seriousness and professionalism of these kids who were given the keys to an unconstitutional candy store.
I was on the policy team of a state that implemented an LPR system. One of the first questions I asked was, “how can this be abused”. My initial thought was a divorce attorney demanding records. We didn’t openly discuss law enforcement officers abusing the system, but it was discussed. We communicated with the ACLU in policy development and provided a system that limited the number of people with access to the LPRs. We also required specific information, like a verifiable agency case number with any request. Lastly, we allowed the public to request limited data on their own verified vehicles. The state also requires that any LPR system using state provided funds to be linked to the state’s central system and is bound by the policy.
Some of the many issues with Flock are with who can access and the total lack of checks and balances. LPR is a great law enforcement tool and I have personally seen it used to solve investigations, including a few murder cases. There is a way to do LPR right, but many agencies and Flock aren’t doing it.
The problem is there is no oversight. Sure you could implement it right but unless there is an independent agency watching EVERYTHING they use it for, it will still end up being abused.
It’s never the tool that’s the problem, always the application.
Brady v. Ohio, an OK ruling that can be used to perform an illegal search if you’ve a mind to.
“I smell weed”, weed is a pretty strong and recognizable odor, but as PC it’s ripe for abuse.
Back in my newspaper days, the reporter breaking me in on the police beat shared with me a horrifying opinion. “Bill. Just remember. There’s a fine line between the cops and the criminals.” Growing up watching Adam-12, I was stunned. Turned out, there was kernel of truth to what he said to me back in 1977. Correctional guard abuses, sheriff’s deputies’ sex crimes (even on their own children) and the occasional brutality lawsuit all came up during that stint with the newspaper. I’d say at least 90% of the law enforcement officers I dealt with during that time were people I had no problem with. And the amount of crap they put up with is something that had to be seen to believe. I imagine it’s much worse now than it was in the late 70s.
To me, it’s sad that a genuinely useful tool for spotting the whereabouts/migration of some truly horrible people has and is being misused to the point of the general population viewing it unfavorably and now resorting to vandalism.
It could be a useful tool, in a perfect world. But in this world we can’t by default trust our public servants to be professional and ethical.
All this data needs to be stopped or locked down to prevent frivolous searches. Get a warrant.
Just remember this subject when your politicians push to have a “human” in control of AI. Trusted humans of course .. public servants … (places hand on heart).
Now, what’s that old saying about absolute power?
(In my career as a security tech, the worst offenders were those in places of authority. As insiders with keys they’d steal freely, blame the staff, and erase the evidence.)
Thousands of years of history shows technology changes, but powerful humans treating other humans badly doesn’t.
I haven’t seen flock cameras anywhere, do some states ban them/not use them?
There are many other ALPR camera types besides Flock. For example police departments in Maryland do not use Flock cameras, however they DO operate their own ALPR programs. Hopefully the heat Flock is getting will also shine the light on these other cameras being used to track people’s movements as well.
I have seen stationary local jurisdiction police cameras, but those are clearly labeled as local police. Since you mention it, it would make sense they dont have Flock because they have their own.
you are not looking…..
https://deflock.org
Flock cameras can be hard to spot, the ones I’ve spotted are 8-10′ up on their own black poles and the cameras themselves are black and not very big. There are like a dozen types other than Flock too, some are integrated into networked streetlights.
Thanks, very useful map, turns out there are none in my city but I have driven by them in other cities/states it seems.
Driving down the street being observed or photographed is one thing, being part of a database that can be tracked and searched is another. Both Flock and local PDs have lied about their policies, their safeguards, their data retention, their access controls, and whether or not individuals are photographed or tracked. They have also exaggerated the effectiveness of the system in crime-solving and misrepresented the occurrence of false alarms resulting in false stops and arrests.
I don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy while driving, but I do have a reasonable expectation that I will not be part of a tracking database.
Touched on by a few others, but a few key points (though IANAL):
– There is no warrant requirement (unlike cellphone searches) because your presence on a public thoroughfare confers no expectation of privacy, and because they’re accessing a paid service (similar to other law enforcement agencies bypassing warrant requirements by just buying info from data brokers). As someone else noted, there’s no 4th amendment violation of having someone stand on that street corner and note down every license plate that passes, and in general, our jurisprudence doesn’t seem to recognize “phase shifts” that come from technology making something that is benign in limited application oppressive when made universal.
– For everyone saying “there should be a warrant requirement”, while I agree, I’m not even clear on what the mechanism would be to put one in place. Can a locality just legislate it into existence?
– Anyone whose proposal for accountability depends on LEO’s access being monitored by their superiors and punished for abuse needs to read more Balko.
– The drop-down is CYA bullshit, and they know it.
A locality could probably legislate a warrant requirement, but it would be best done at the national level. Otherwise, you’re going to have a patchwork of differing expectations/requirements, some of which may vary within the same jurisdiction (a state or county agency operating in a city that institutes such a policy might be subject to different requirements than the city police, for example). A federal law would be much cleaner.
The issue isn’t the plain view of public on it’s own, it’s the networked and databased system linking it all together.
Would a police department pay 500 people to log every vehicle plate, color, identifiers, make, and model, in shifts, 24/7, and then digitize the records? No, that’s absurd. But an automatic system makes it okay because it simply hasn’t been legislated or ruled on yet.
Requiring a warrant could be done 3 ways, State Law, Federal Law, or SCOTUS Ruling (protected by 4A).
BTW Flock data is used as as probable cause for vehicle searches already, which should be a 4A violation on it’s own.
In the news today, a San Jose cop was fired for accessing a Flock database to get info on a woman who had accused his cousin of domestic violence. Not only has this clearly gotten way out of hand, the problems have surfaced and are out in the media. There’s a lot of awareness of these things now, so I think there will be changes in how they’re used. I agree with those who believe a warrant should be required before searching the database for someone.
Ok, you know what? I changed my mind.
If we’re going to do Late-Stage Dystopian Cyberpunk Capitalism, let’s RAWDOG Late-Stage Dystopian Cyperpunk Capitalism.
Flock is open to everyone! $850/mo, $50 per request. Visa, Mastercard, Paypal all accepted. Worried someone’s looking for you? Sure, sign up for the Plus account and find out what searches you showed up in last month! Pay a little more and get Plus Gold, with live notifications! Want to find out who is looking at you? A Platnium Plus account can do reverse inquiries! Of course, if you are really concerned about privacy, contact our Executive Sales Director to discuss a Black Diamond account that will discreetly remove you from searches! (Subject to credit, background, and minimum income check, of course.)
Sell them in bundles like CarFax! Send out free trials like AOL!
Fuck it all, we are burning this bitch down in the name of SHAREHOLDER VALUE!
What can i get for Double Plus Black Diamond Platinum Gold?
For you, Senator, anything you like…
Unfortunately your city canceled their contract with Flock and signed up with Flack, so you will have to solicit them.
Somehow this is better than a system where only the cops have access to it.
Once they have sold to every locality they can and revenue plateaus I wouldn’t rule out them opening it to the consumer market in pursuit of eternal growth. Look at all the background search sites on the web, it’s coming.
There was a time when we all knew
What was bupkis and what was true. We must rejoice, time is fleeting, if it exists. We have but now, make the most, before we’re All just a bunch of toast. I saunter though knowing not, what best to do. We have only but one of me and only one of you.
There was a time when we laughed, alas the time has passed. I fear not now, but what will be. There was a time, when we were young, our story sought, but not yet sung. Our children must be taught, not as we were chided, lessons learned, but not abided. This I fear, our legacy forbidden. Shall we have a future, or by our own means smitten.
We have but ourselves to blame. Will we continue, or will it be shame.
“50 Fockers, what could be better?”
I think restricting searches to a drop down list of reasons is a terrible very bad and dangerous idea.
I would much rather have a search for me be on the record as “weird ketchup stain” or ”sexy hat” instead of some actual bad thing just because a bad thing needed to be input to make a search. “I see from the record that you have been searched as possible sex predator , and twice for lewd bicycling. Would you care to explain that?”
Hey, we don’t talk about the Lewd Bicycling Club. Shhhsh! I want my search tag to be “stainoflauge computing error”.
You must be in the west coast Lewd Bicycling Club. The east cost members simply won’t shut up about it.
Has any camera system like this been deployed in Canada? I haven’t heard of one, but the drawback of having our less angry political discourse is that the government can sometimes get away with more without people making a fuss about it
The US has not been a nation governed by laws for a long time; I don’t know why this surprises anyone. The purpose of our institutions is now to consolidate power in the few and protect them from accountability.
there are those who are protected by the law, but not bound by it.
and there are also those who are bound by the law, but not protected by it.
kinda sux.
Oh yeah, and another thing to hate about these cameras? Guess where the money is coming from in lots of places: the opioid industry settlement funds.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/08/police-opioid-funding-flock-alpr-camera-surveillance-tech/
The same issue is with traffic light cameras and speed cameras. They are there for local revenue generation. The companies that sell them whole sales pitch to cities is about how much income they can produce, its not about safety. They especially like them for out of towners who are unfamiliar with the area. They’ll place a sign close to the camera so you don’t have time to react before getting nabbed. Most don’t try to go back to fight a $200 ticket.
I’m going to argue that. They are NOT there for “local” revenue.
A decade+ ago, the county where I live had them. Until the local newspaper reports that only ~10% of the fines actually went to city coffers. The other ~90% went to the for-profit camera operator in a different state.
That’s so hilariously stupid that it reads like something the Onion would write, and yet it’s true. It’s a similar deal in Chicago, where the money you pay for a parking meter goes to a private business, not really the city. But the city does get money out of you if you let that meter expire.
Philly is the same
The New York based firm has to sell their airline that was doing deportation flights for the trump administration as part of the deal for ownership of Chicago’s parking meters, so hooray for silver lining I guess.
If I were president, I’d make an executive order banning predatory revenue-generation schemes through fines/tickets/ect. It should be a system of “no harm, no foul”. No victim, no crime.
I agree to an extent, however if you’re going 120mph down the highway, that is a crime even if you don’t hit anyone. Same thing with driving drunk.
Every so often you read about some town where the yellow light timing is shortened because of a lack of revenue on the red light cameras.
Gotta at least hit the break even point where you make enough on your 10% cut to pay the up front subscription cost.
We had them here after the camera company claimed that the cameras would more than pay for themselves. This turned out to be completely untrue and the city ended the contract.