Subscribe now on Facebook or become a Patreon to support Siouxland Scanner.
Your car's movements are being tracked, stored, and shared — and you almost certainly never consented to it.
---
Across the United States, a rapidly expanding network of automated license plate cameras is quietly documenting the movements of millions of drivers. Installed on street poles, near neighborhood entrances, school zones, and highway ramps, these devices are part of a system operated by Flock Safety.
To most people passing by, the cameras appear unremarkable — small weatherproof boxes with a lens. But behind that lens is a powerful data-collection system capable of recording where vehicles travel, when they travel, and how often they appear in specific places.
Critics say the technology is creating a modern surveillance infrastructure that tracks ordinary people without their knowledge or consent.
---
A Camera That Watches Every Car
Flock's technology relies on automated license plate readers (ALPRs) — cameras that capture images of passing vehicles and extract plate numbers from them. Each time a car drives past one of these cameras, the system logs the license plate number, vehicle color and type, date and time, and the exact location of the camera. That information is uploaded to a cloud database where it can be searched later.
Supporters argue the system helps police identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects, and respond more quickly to crimes. But critics say the system goes far beyond targeted crime investigation. Instead, it collects data on **every vehicle that passes** — whether the driver is suspected of wrongdoing or simply commuting to work.
---
Surveillance by Default
The core concern raised by privacy advocates is that the system doesn't just monitor suspicious vehicles — it records *everyone*.
A parent picking up groceries, a worker commuting to their job, or a person visiting a doctor can all be logged by the same network. Unlike traditional investigations that focus on specific suspects, the system gathers information first and determines relevance later.
That means everyday movements — commutes, school runs, visits to friends, or trips across town — can all become part of a searchable database you never agreed to be in.
---
A Nationwide Data-Sharing Network
One of the most controversial features of Flock's platform is the ability for agencies to share data across jurisdictions through a system known as the **National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS)**.
In practice, this means a police department in one state can search license plate reads captured by cameras hundreds — or even thousands — of miles away. A road trip across multiple states could potentially generate a digital trail that can be queried by law enforcement agencies across the entire country.
Privacy advocates warn that this effectively creates a **nationwide vehicle tracking network** — one that has expanded with little public awareness or debate.
---
The Scale Is Staggering
The size of this network should not be underestimated.
Flock cameras have been deployed in thousands of communities across all 50 states, including installations purchased by police departments, neighborhood associations, and private businesses. Estimates put the total number of active cameras in the **hundreds of thousands nationwide**.
And because these systems can share data across agencies, the network becomes more powerful with every new city that signs on. Each new camera doesn't just add coverage locally — it adds to a national grid.
---
What They Know About You
Another major concern is how long the data is stored and what it reveals.
Flock systems typically retain license plate data for around 30 days, though agencies can choose longer retention windows depending on their policies. During that time, a vehicle's appearances at different camera locations can reveal detailed patterns about a person's life — their daily commute, regular destinations, travel habits, and frequent locations.
Civil liberties organizations like the **American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)** and the **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)** argue that this data goes far deeper than most people realize. A vehicle's travel history can expose sensitive information about a person's relationships, religious practices, medical visits, and political activities.
Your car isn't just a car. It's a diary.
---
Who Can Access Your Data?
In addition to law enforcement agencies, some Flock systems are purchased and operated by **private organizations such as homeowners associations (HOAs)** — groups that collect license plate data independently but can still share it with police. Critics argue this creates a surveillance system partially run by private entities that face no transparency requirements and answer to no public oversight board.
Beyond HOAs, there are serious unresolved questions about whether data stored in cloud systems could be accessed by federal agencies, subpoenaed in legal proceedings, or exposed through cyberattacks. Once the data exists, the question of who ultimately controls it is far from settled.
---
It's Already Here in Siouxland
Flock Safety cameras aren't just a big-city problem. They are already operating in the Sioux City metro area — and most local residents have no idea.
Siouxland Scanner has mapped known Flock Safety ALPR camera locations across the region using data sourced from DeFlock.me https://deflock.me . You can see exactly where these cameras are positioned, which direction they're pointed, and how much of your daily route may already be covered.
**View the Siouxland Flock Camera Map at https://sux.news/deflock
If you commute through Sioux City, cross into South Dakota or Nebraska, or simply run errands around town, there's a real chance your plate has already been logged — multiple times.
---
The Tide Is Turning: Communities Are Pulling Out
Here's something Flock Safety doesn't advertise: communities are removing their cameras at a rapidly accelerating pace.
At least 30 localities have either deactivated their Flock cameras or canceled their contracts since the beginning of 2025 — with much of that activity happening in just the last few months. The list includes cities of all sizes and political leanings.
Eugene and Springfield, Oregon both terminated their Flock contracts in December 2025 following months of public pressure from groups like Eyes Off Eugene, who called it a "dragnet surveillance" system. In Saranac Lake, New York, residents packed a village board meeting and voted 4-1 to terminate their contract after many learned the cameras had been installed without their knowledge, using $72,000 in public grant money.
Mountain View, California terminated its contract after discovering that outside agencies had been accessing the city's camera data without the city's knowledge — and that Flock had changed system settings without ever notifying the police department. The police chief's own assessment: Flock had "absolutely failed to perform in the way in which they assured us that they would."
A big reason for the accelerating backlash is the revelation that Flock admitted to having a pilot program with U.S. Customs and Border Protection — which includes Border Patrol. In California, state law prohibits sharing license plate reader data with federal agencies, but multiple state and municipal law enforcement agencies were reported to have done so anyway.
And Flock's response to the growing opposition has done little to help their image. Flock's CEO called DeFlock — the crowdsourced mapping project run by a Colorado activist — "terroristic." Freeman of DeFlock responded: "I really didn't know what to say when I heard that accusation because the only thing we did was make a website mapping them out."
DeFlock now counts 46 cities that have officially rejected Flock and other ALPRs since its campaign began. Expect that number to keep climbing.
---
Growing Pushback and Grassroots Resistance
Public concern about automated license plate surveillance has led to growing activism and watchdog efforts.
Websites such as HaveIBeenFlocked.com https://haveibeenflocked.com/ track known camera locations and help people understand how widespread the network has become. The site exists largely because many communities were never informed when cameras were installed in their neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, activists connected to DeFlock https://deflock.me/ publish research, guides, and investigations documenting the spread of license plate reader networks and their implications for privacy and civil liberties. Their work analyzes deployments across the country and highlights cases where cameras were installed with little public notice or oversight.
These grassroots efforts aim to bring transparency to a system critics say expanded largely outside public view — and they represent a growing movement of citizens demanding accountability for surveillance technology installed in their own communities.
---
A Private Company, Funded by Your Tax Dollars
Here's something that rarely gets mentioned in the conversation about Flock Safety: this is not a government program. Flock Safety is a **private, for-profit corporation** — one that has built a nationwide surveillance network largely on the back of public money.
When a police department purchases a Flock system, they're typically paying with taxpayer funds — city budgets, federal grants, and law enforcement funding that flows from the public. Flock Safety generated **$285 million in revenue in 2024** and has been valued at **$7.5 billion** by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. The company operates in over 5,000 communities and performs over **20 billion vehicle scans every month** across the United States.
In other words: the public is paying to be surveilled, and a private company is profiting from every plate read.
That arrangement would be troubling enough on its own. But Flock Safety takes it a step further.
---
How Flock Helps Agencies Dodge FOIA Requests
Because Flock Safety is a private company — not a government agency — it can exploit gaps in public records law in ways that government-run systems cannot.
When journalists, researchers, or concerned citizens file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to find out how local agencies are using Flock's cameras, they frequently run into a wall. Agencies often argue that records related to their Flock systems are protected as **trade secrets** belonging to the private vendor — shielding operational details, data-sharing agreements, camera locations, and query logs from public scrutiny.
Flock Safety's contracts with law enforcement agencies have been reported to include language that makes it easier for agencies to deny or narrow FOIA requests related to the system. The result is a surveillance network built with public money, operating in public spaces, tracking public movements — that the public has remarkably little ability to inspect or audit.
This is not an accident. It is a feature of how private surveillance vendors operate. By positioning themselves as the keeper of proprietary systems, companies like Flock can enjoy all the benefits of government contracts while avoiding the accountability that comes with being a government agency.
The people paying for the system have the least access to information about how it works.
---
The Transparency Problem
Many residents are completely unaware when these cameras are installed in their communities. In numerous cases, deployments have occurred with limited public discussion, no community vote, and minimal oversight.
The result is that many communities only learn about the system after cameras are already in place — and already collecting data on everyone passing by.
That a network capable of tracking vehicle movements across cities and states can be built with so little public awareness is one of the most persistent criticisms raised by privacy advocates. It is not a minor procedural complaint. It goes to the heart of whether citizens in a democracy have any meaningful say over the surveillance infrastructure built around them.
---
The Chilling Effect on Your Freedom
Even if you've never committed a crime, the knowledge that your movements may be tracked changes behavior. Researchers and civil liberties groups call this the "chilling effect." When people believe they're being monitored, they alter what they do, where they go, and who they see.
They might skip a protest. Avoid a clinic. Think twice about the church they attend or the meeting they planned to join.
Mass surveillance does not have to directly target individuals to influence behavior. The mere presence of widespread monitoring can change how people live their daily lives — and that change is a cost that rarely shows up in Flock Safety's sales pitch.
---
The Legal Gray Area
One reason this technology has spread so quickly is that license plates are generally considered visible in public spaces. Because of that, courts have often ruled that recording them doesn't require a warrant.
But critics argue that while a single camera observation might be harmless, a network of hundreds of thousands of cameras capable of reconstructing a person's movements over time raises fundamentally new constitutional questions. The debate centers on whether collecting massive amounts of location data from ordinary citizens — without cause, without consent, and without meaningful limits — constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
The technology has moved faster than the law. And until the law catches up, there is very little standing between your daily movements and a permanent, searchable record.
---
What You Can Do
**Visit HaveIBeenFlocked.com https://haveibeenflocked.com/ The site tracks publicly known Flock camera locations and helps you understand the scope of coverage in your area. Start with knowing what's watching you.
**Engage your local government. Many Flock deployments were approved quietly without public hearings or community input. Ask city officials about data retention policies, which agencies have access, and whether any auditing of searches exists.
**Support ALPR legislation. Groups such as the ACLU and EFF advocate for limits on license plate reader data retention and cross-agency sharing. A growing number of states are taking this issue seriously.
**Follow independent research. Organizations like DeFlock https://deflock.me/ publish ongoing investigations and analysis on the expansion of ALPR surveillance systems.
**Talk about it.** Many people simply don't know this infrastructure exists. Awareness is the first step toward accountability.
--
Conclusion
Supporters of Flock Safety point out that the system has helped recover stolen vehicles and assisted in real criminal investigations. Those outcomes matter.
But step back and look at the full picture: a private corporation, funded by public tax dollars, has built a nationwide surveillance network that tracks the movements of ordinary citizens without their consent — and has structured its contracts in ways that make it harder for those same citizens to find out how the system works or holds it accountable.
The public is paying for it. The public is being watched by it. And the public has almost no meaningful way to audit, challenge, or opt out of it.
That is not a law enforcement tool. That is a business model.
As the network continues to expand, communities across the country are being asked to decide where the line between safety and privacy should be drawn.
Most of them don't even know the question is being asked.