Flock license-plate cameras are watching us. We did not ask for them, didn’t vote for them, and most residents did not know they were being installed. Now, we live with our movements being watched 24/7. As citizens learn about the extent of the cameras, they are expressing their anger about being monitored without consent–and taking action
These cameras don’t just track a law breaker. They record everyone: parents driving kids to school, residents going to work, innocent visits to family. Over time, this data reveals intimate patterns—medical visits, hockey practice, PTO meetings—details of private life that have nothing to do with crime.
Promised safeguard policies can change quietly. Data can be shared beyond city borders. Audits happen after misuse, not before it starts. Will those audits be public? Once surveillance infrastructure is in place, it rarely shrinks—it grows.
At the same time, residents understand the claimed benefits. Flock systems can help recover stolen vehicles, locate missing persons, and speed up investigations of serious crimes. No one is arguing against public safety.
KSTP-TV conducted a review of several dozen department policies around the state, learning that the guidelines vary from one jurisdiction to another because each is responsible for tailoring their own guidelines. Some clearly preclude immigration enforcement. The rules around data sharing are even more vague.
Residents deserve a voice in enforceable rules and guarantees on each of these: short data-retention periods, strict limits on sharing, regular public audit reports, bans on immigration enforcement use, and real consequences for misuse. Can these guarantees be met?
Mankato, MN residents organized to push back on Flock cameras in Mankato. Objections centered on: privacy intrusion, data sharing, potential misuse and decision-making that did not reflect community will.
Brooklyn Park, MN recently cancelled its contract for eight Flock cameras.
Mountain View, CA: Last week, a department audit revealed that Flock allowed unauthorized federal and state agencies to access local data, violating city policies. They removed all cameras.
Denver, CO halted use of Flock Safety cameras installed at 70 intersections in 2024, with the city council moving to halt their use due to privacy concerns and data sharing with immigration authorities. Despite a five-month extension by the mayor, the future of these cameras in Denver remains uncertain following privacy-related backlash from citizens.
Redmond, WA shut down its system in Nov. 2025 due to resident concern about federal access to their Flock system.
As residents become aware of Flock cameras, the discussion moves beyond how the technology works to whether it intrudes on personal privacy. At its core, the question is whether the system serves the public interest, or whether it normalizes permanent surveillance without public consent.
SCA reading:
Flock Cameras: What you need to know
A Few Loud Voices
Flock Privacy Concerns
More reading:
Mountain View CA camera removal
Denver, CO Flock cameras accessed for immigration searches
Brooklyn Park MN removes Flock cameras due to accountability issues
Redmond, WA shuts down camera in Nov. 2025
Mankato, MN residents fill the council chambers
