Is the United States is moving toward an expansive surveillance system through police use of automated license-plate reader cameras (ALPRs), especially Flock Safety’s network? Regardless, critics warn that the technology can track people’s movements without warrants, potentially normalizing a police-state model that undermines Fourth Amendment protections.
The argument
Steven Greenhut, per his article on Reason.com, insists that flock’s ALPRs gather, save, and disseminate location data on vehicles en masse, and thereby allow law enforcement to construct a history of where someone travels, who someone visits, and what neighborhood(s) someone frequents. Mr. Greenhut defines this as a significant civil liberty issue due to the fact that all of this data gathering occurs without individualized suspicion or court review.
It's scary just how many Flock cameras went up between January 2024 and July 2026. pic.twitter.com/SERKFNiiI5
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) July 17, 2026
There are currently over 120,000 flock cameras operating across the nation and he worries that state actors will be able to access more powerful surveillance tools due to their broad authority.
Concerns regarding abuse and oversight
Greenhut cites cases where police officers allegedly abused their power with flock and other plate-reader technologies. The point is to show how such tools can enable tracking of girlfriends or former lovers. He feels these instances illustrate that internal police policies alone cannot ensure that abuses do not occur.
He also mentions that the Los Angeles Police Department suspended its flock contract after members of the department expressed serious concerns regarding privacy issues related to data ownership, security issues, civil liberties issues, and sharing of data with federal agencies.
Wisconsin police used Flock cameras to track a man’s interstate travel, where the data was then used as probable cause justification to search his car
— Interesting AF (@interesting_aIl) August 6, 2026
The man frequently went to Michigan, where weed was legal, then back to Wisconsin where it was illegal pic.twitter.com/qAwwl2OeV2
China comparison
Greenhut makes comparisons to China primarily for rhetorical purposes. He states that China’s use of facial recognition technologies, biometric identification technologies, and interconnected tracking mechanisms demonstrates the endpoint towards which America should strive to avoid. However, he does not claim that America is currently operating at the same level of surveillance as China; instead, he asserts that license-plate-reader networks represent steps along a trajectory towards a much broader scope of state surveillance mechanisms.
Supporters of Flock Cameras
Supporters claim that Flock’s use of camera technology helps law enforcement to solve crimes; track down stolen automobiles; find missing people; and assist in identifying suspect cars faster. Supporters also maintain that the cameras capture images (and therefore read) the license plate number and all other information related to the vehicle which is visible on public roadways; they do NOT collect facial recognition data or follow named individuals continuously.
Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley says Americans can’t outright ban Flock cameras because they are ‘for our safety’
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) August 23, 2026
“I value my privacy, my family values their privacy, my employees value their privacy, but what we're talking about is safety as well”
“So I think when people talk… pic.twitter.com/TEBmEhbdcd
Conclusion
Should advanced surveillance technologies be subject to strong constitutional limits and warrant requirements? External oversight should ensure they are not used to create detailed citizen databases. Nor should they make predictive determinations about who may pose a threat or be troublesome.
