Congress Takes Aim At Flock Surveillance Cameras With A 180 Day Deadline

A surveillance company whose cameras have spread across American roads is facing an unusual political challenge, with Republicans and Democrats joining forces over concerns about how automated license plate readers are funded and used. The fight has intensified as reports of police misuse, privacy concerns and growing local opposition have pushed Flock Safety into the national spotlight.

The latest development is a federal bill carrying an unusually blunt name: the Flock-Off Act. Introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri, H.R. 10221 would restrict federal funding for automated license plate readers and certain biometric surveillance cameras, with a 180-day removal provision for systems supported by federal money.

The proposal has attracted attention because of what that deadline could mean for surveillance networks already operating across the country. But the legislation does not simply order every Flock camera in America to be switched off. Its reach depends on how the equipment is funded, making the distinction between a nationwide ban and a federal funding restriction especially important.

The Bill Puts Federal Money In The Crosshairs

Massie and Burlison filed H.R. 10221 on September 2, targeting federal spending connected to automated license plate readers and biometric surveillance cameras. The legislation would prohibit federal funds from being used to purchase, install, maintain, operate or upgrade covered surveillance systems, potentially affecting more than just Flock Safety and extending to competing technologies.

Under the proposal, agencies that used federal money for covered systems would have 180 days to remove the equipment or risk losing the funding associated with the relevant federal program. The bill would also require violators to repay federal money to the U.S. Treasury, adding a financial consequence to the proposed restrictions.

That makes the 180-day provision significant, but it does not amount to an automatic nationwide shutdown of every Flock camera. A local police department operating a system entirely through its own funding would not necessarily be required to remove its equipment simply because H.R. 10221 became law.

The legislation instead attacks one of the financial channels that can help surveillance systems spread. That approach could still have substantial consequences for departments that rely on federal support, particularly if they have built long-term contracts around hardware, software, cloud storage and data-sharing services.

Why Flock Has Become A National Political Target

Flock Safety has become one of the most recognizable companies in America’s growing automated surveillance industry. Founded in 2017, the Atlanta-based company sells automated license plate reader systems that photograph passing vehicles and collect information that can later be searched by authorized users.

The technology is designed to help police investigate crimes and locate people. Supporters say it has been particularly useful for finding stolen vehicles, identifying suspects and locating missing people who may otherwise be difficult to trace.

Chief Ray Schultz of the Memorial Villages Police Department in Texas told the BBC that his department recovered an average of three stolen cars a year before purchasing a Flock system. Afterward, he said, that number rose to 45, illustrating why some law enforcement officials consider the technology an important investigative resource.

Schultz also described a case involving an elderly woman with dementia who had driven roughly 60 miles from Galveston toward Houston and became lost. Police used Flock to help locate her and reunite her with her family, giving supporters a concrete example of how a surveillance tool can be used for public safety.

The same technology has also generated concerns because the cameras photograph vehicles that are not suspected of committing crimes. Critics argue that collecting information on every passing car creates a system capable of revealing where ordinary people travel, even when they have never been accused of wrongdoing.

The Network Goes Far Beyond A Single Camera

The controversy surrounding Flock is not limited to what an individual camera sees. One of the company’s major selling points is the ability for participating law enforcement agencies to access data across a broader network, potentially allowing an investigation in one jurisdiction to draw on information collected somewhere else.

Documents obtained by the BBC offered a glimpse into how extensive that network can become. Houston’s Metro Transit Authority owns 35 cameras, but the agency reportedly had access to approximately 20,000 devices within the wider Flock network, including cameras located hundreds of miles away.

The scope of searches has also expanded. In the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, a typical license plate lookup searched roughly 270 camera networks in April 2024, according to documents reviewed by the BBC. By April 2025, the typical search scope had nearly doubled to around 500 networks.

By April 2026, 20% of searches were reportedly carried out across more than 6,000 networks. Those figures have become central to criticism of Flock because they demonstrate how a camera placed on a local road can potentially contribute to an investigation that reaches far beyond the community where the vehicle was recorded.

Christopher Rivera of the Texas Civil Rights Project warned that authorities could use these databases to reconstruct everyday routines. He specifically raised concerns about information revealing routes to work, children’s schools and places of worship, arguing that such tracking creates serious civil liberties questions.

Reports Of Police Misuse Have Intensified The Debate

The political backlash has grown alongside reports that individual law enforcement officers have misused Flock systems for personal purposes. The Washington Post reported nearly 50 instances in which police officers were charged or accused of using the cameras improperly, including cases involving the tracking of current or former romantic partners and family members.

One case in Kentucky involved a police officer accused of using the system to track his former girlfriend more than 2,000 times. The officer was reportedly caught through an audit tool designed to identify suspicious searches, illustrating both the potential for abuse and the usefulness of monitoring systems intended to detect it.

The Savannah Police Department faced its own controversy this week after six employees, including four officers, were fired following allegations involving unauthorized searches. The employees were accused of searching for friends and family members and allowing an officer from another agency to use the city’s cameras.

Flock said its voluntary audit function helped bring the Savannah misuse to the department’s attention. For critics, however, the existence of such cases demonstrates why safeguards cannot remain optional, particularly when the underlying technology can reveal sensitive information about people’s movements.

The concerns have also extended to searches connected to abortion. Reference material cited a 2025 case in Johnson County, Texas, where a detective searched more than 80,000 images while trying to locate a woman suspected of having an abortion. The detective did not have a warrant, adding another dimension to the debate over whether police should be able to search large repositories of vehicle-location data without judicial authorization.

Flock Is Making Some Safeguards Mandatory

Flock has responded to the criticism by changing several rules governing its platform. CEO Garrett Langley said many safeguards that were previously optional will become mandatory for law enforcement customers by January 1.

One of the biggest changes requires law enforcement customers to implement an audit tool designed to flag abnormal search behavior. When the system detects unusual activity, the user can be locked out while an internal review takes place.

Police users will also have to enter a code from their records management system connecting a search to a specific case before the search can be conducted. Emergency overrides will be automatically flagged for review, creating another layer of scrutiny around searches that bypass normal procedures.

The company is also reducing its standard data retention period from 30 days to seven days. Data connected to an investigation can still be preserved for longer when it is tied to a case number, allowing departments to retain evidence they say is necessary for an active case.

Another change gives customers more control over the types of offenses for which outside agencies can search their data. A city or department could potentially prevent outside searches connected to immigration enforcement, depending on how it configures its system.

Langley said that option would allow individual communities to operate Flock in a way that is “consistent with community values.” Critics, however, argue that company-level safeguards cannot substitute for laws, warrants and independent judicial oversight.

Civil Liberties Groups Say The Changes Do Not Go Far Enough

The American Civil Liberties Union responded skeptically to Flock’s changes. The organization said reducing the standard evidence retention period could be “a step in the right direction,” while arguing that other measures amounted to recycled safeguards that had not adequately prevented misuse.

Robert Frommer, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, was even more critical of the company’s response. He described the changes as “window dressing” and argued that the fundamental issue remained the ability of police officers to determine who gets searched and when.

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a professor at George Washington University Law School who studies policing, big data surveillance and the Fourth Amendment, offered a more cautious assessment. He said the changes were “better than the opposite” but argued that the technology still required sustained public scrutiny and judicial checks on access.

Ferguson also noted that the growing backlash against Flock has surprised him because automated license plate readers are not a new technology and other companies sell similar products. What has changed, he suggested, is the public’s awareness of how pervasive the systems have become.

The concern is increasingly tied to the feeling that people can be monitored simply by driving through their own communities. That perception has helped transform Flock from a relatively obscure technology company into a major political issue.

Republicans And Democrats Are Finding Common Ground

The Flock controversy stands out because privacy and surveillance debates in Washington have historically produced sharp partisan divisions. Arguments over laws such as the Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have often placed lawmakers from the same party on opposing sides.

The backlash against Flock has produced a different political alignment. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have both raised concerns about the technology, creating a coalition that cuts across traditional party lines.

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has blocked state agencies from procuring Flock products. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has launched an investigation into potential privacy abuses, while Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders has said he plans to introduce legislation restricting the technology.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna has also joined Republican Rep. Thomas Massie on legislation targeting the use of federal funds for Flock cameras. The unusual alliance has included conservative lawmakers such as Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar and Chip Roy alongside members from the other side of the political spectrum.

Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, said he had never seen such a strong grassroots uprising against a surveillance technology during his more than 20 years with the organization. He pointed to different political traditions that nevertheless produce similar concerns about government access to personal information.

For some conservatives, the issue fits a longstanding distrust of government surveillance and demands for greater individual freedom. For liberals, it connects with historical concerns about government monitoring of activists and communities.

More Communities Are Dropping Flock Contracts

The congressional fight follows a growing wave of local resistance. More than 100 jurisdictions have canceled Flock contracts, according to data cited by the Institute for Justice, while another tracker maintained by the grassroots organization DeFlock has documented dozens of cancellations, suspensions and rejected contracts.

The BBC reported that more than 200 communities have canceled or declined to renew Flock contracts since 2021, citing data from advocacy group Secure Justice. Some decisions have reportedly involved privacy concerns, while others have been influenced by costs or disagreements about surveillance policies.

Major metropolitan areas including Los Angeles, Seattle and Austin have been among the jurisdictions that opted not to continue contracts with Flock. The decisions demonstrate that the debate is no longer confined to small activist groups or privacy organizations.

Some communities have taken a different approach by replacing Flock with surveillance equipment from other manufacturers. That means canceling a Flock contract does not necessarily eliminate automated license plate monitoring from an area.

The broader political question therefore extends beyond one company. Lawmakers and local officials are increasingly being forced to decide whether they object specifically to Flock or to the wider surveillance model that automated license plate readers represent.

The Subscription Model Could Become A Major Political Issue

Flock’s business model is another reason the federal legislation has attracted attention. The company generally sells a bundled subscription that can include cameras, cellular connectivity, cloud storage, software, installation and automatic upgrades rather than treating the camera as a one-time hardware purchase.

That arrangement means customers are paying for an ongoing surveillance service. When a contract ends, Flock’s own materials describe an offboarding process that can include removal of the company’s hardware.

The Flock-Off Act therefore targets more than the physical cameras sitting on poles. Its language also reaches the infrastructure that keeps surveillance networks running, including cloud subscriptions, data storage and data-sharing agreements supported with federal money.

The bill’s exceptions also reveal how narrowly Congress is defining the proposed restriction. It would preserve federal funding for automated license plate readers used for toll collection and enforcement, while also protecting certain systems near the northern and southern borders used to interdict smuggling and trafficking.

That means the proposed legislation is not an attempt to eliminate every automated plate reader in America. It draws a line around particular uses and funding sources while leaving other applications in place.

The distinction could become increasingly important as the bill moves through Congress, because communities could still choose to maintain surveillance systems with local or private money even if federal funding is restricted.

The Fight Is Now About Who Controls The Data

Flock has emphasized the public safety benefits of its technology, saying its systems have helped solve around a million crimes and locate more than 10,000 missing people. The company argues that local communities should have substantial control over how the technology is used.

Langley told the BBC, “I don’t think a technology company should be making decisions like that,” referring to decisions about which laws cities should enforce and how local governments should manage their surveillance systems.

He has also argued that Flock will not tell cities which laws they should enforce as long as the investigations are lawful. The company has maintained that it is a safety company rather than a surveillance company.

Critics see the issue differently because the cameras can collect information on people who are never suspected of a crime. They argue that the ability to reconstruct vehicle movements across a large network creates a surveillance capability that deserves stronger legal limits.

Law enforcement officials counter that removing useful investigative tools can make it harder to recover stolen vehicles, find missing people and investigate serious crimes. Chuck Wexler of the Police Executive Research Forum described the dispute as a balancing act between privacy and effective policing.

The debate is unlikely to be resolved by a single federal bill. It is already playing out through local contract decisions, state restrictions, congressional investigations, company policy changes and lawsuits over constitutional protections.

For now, the Flock-Off Act puts an important question before Congress: how much public money should support technology capable of recording and searching the movements of millions of drivers?

If the legislation advances, the 180-day provision could become the most visible part of that fight. But the larger dispute will remain over who can access vehicle-location data, what justification they need, how long information can be retained and whether a police search should require a judge’s approval.

The cameras have already changed how law enforcement can track vehicles across American communities. The political fight now centers on whether the rules governing that power can catch up.