New technology can solve crimes faster, safer, and less expensively than ever before. So why is it causing such a backlash?
Before I dive more deeply into the company—and issues—at play here, let me tell you why this story’s personal.
“I’ve been robbed”
I came home and my place was ransacked.
I was a young reporter in Spokane and routinely covered crime, but never expected to be a victim myself. Drawers yanked open. Closets emptied. The burglars used my pillowcases to haul off heirloom jewelry.
The police came, took a report, and left. Weeks of checking pawn shops and posting reward signs went nowhere. I kept telling myself it was “just stuff,” but that feeling—violated, vulnerable—stuck.
How can someone steal from you and simply get away with it? If new technology can change those odds, I want to know how—and at what price.
What is Flock Safety, and how do license plate cameras work?
Georgia Tech engineer Garrett Langley describes a similar sense of frustration after burglars kept hitting his Atlanta neighborhood. Police told him there was nothing they could do without evidence. So, he cobbled together a basic license plate reading camera on his dining room table and helped end the crime spree.
License plate readers weren’t new, but Langley’s version was cheaper, easier to deploy, and didn’t require expensive infrastructure. By making the cameras solar-powered and connected over cell networks, Flock brought the technology within reach of smaller towns and departments that couldn’t afford earlier systems.
That DIY fix grew into Flock Safety, a seven-year-old company valued at about $7.5 billion. Langley, Flock’s CEO, says it operates in more than 6,000 communities and touches nearly every corner of American law enforcement.
How do Flock cameras help fight crime?
Flock’s license plate readers sit on poles near neighborhoods, schools, and shopping centers, snapping encrypted photos of every passing car.
The system logs plate information, vehicle characteristics, and timestamps. Police can log into a dashboard, enter a case number, and search not just by plate number, but also by make, model, or even bumper stickers.
One of ten Flock Safety license plate readers installed across Bartlesville, this camera is part of a citywide system drawing both support and scrutiny.
Langley says the network processes billions of scans a month and plays a role in about 20% of arrests when “something bad happens” in an area using its technology.
“We want to turn every officer into Superman on day zero,” Langley told me. For him, that means giving local agencies real-time AI tools — license plate readers, gunshot detectors, drones — that help find suspects, recover stolen cars, and reunite families faster.
Why does this technology make people nervous?
For every rescue and solved crime, critics point to troubling examples and systemic risks,not always tied directly to Flock, but to license plate readers in general.
Studies put misread rates between 10% and 35%, depending on conditions. In Toledo, a misread contributed to a Black man being mauled by a police K-9 dog after a traffic stop. In the Tampa area, a deputy’s typo during a tag check left a father and his teen daughter handcuffed at gunpoint.
Civil liberties advocates warn that constant collection of location data — even without faces — can reveal deeply personal details such as where you worship, whom you protest with, or whether you visit a reproductive-health clinic.
What is the Flock Safety scandal?
The biggest Flock controversy centers on allegations that law enforcement has abused the company’s surveillance network to target women, immigrants, and people engaging in legal activity outside their home states.
The flashpoint came when a Texas sheriff used used Flock’s national lookup tool to search cameras across state lines in a missing person case involving a woman who had self-administered an abortion. Audit logs showed the search included terms like “had an abortion, search for female.”
That triggered an investigation in Illinois, after it was revealed that Texas officers had pulled data from cameras in Illinois, Washington, and other states where abortion is legal — violating local protections. Critics called it a prime example of mass surveillance being weaponized against women’s reproductive rights.
Flock denied wrongdoing, insisting the search was about a missing person. Flock also rolled out new restrictions: blocking certain search terms, cutting off federal blanket access, and halting pilot programs with agencies such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
“Our goal is to give cities control,” Langley said. “Transparency and oversight remain in their hands.”
Some legal experts aren’t convinced. “We’re relying on local decisions to govern what’s basically a national surveillance system,” UC Davis law professor Elizabeth Joh told me. “That’s not how constitutional protections are supposed to work.”
How do we reconcile safety with privacy?
That visceral need for safety is why Flock’s pitch lands with more than a dash of hope for me. The idea that new technology can flip the odds of catching a thief or recovering a child feels like progress.
At the same time, watching a map light up with someone’s movements across state lines — even if used for good — feels uncomfortably close to dystopia.
Maybe the real question is whether we’re willing to do the harder work: Create the legal frameworks, oversight mechanisms, and civic conversations that keep us safe from both criminals and unchecked surveillance.
Jennifer Jolly is an Emmy Award-winning consumer tech columnist and on-air contributor for “The Today Show.” The views and opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of USA TODAY. Contact her via Techish.com or @JennJolly on Instagram.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Safety or privacy? License plate cameras spark controversy