Cities across the US (including Bend, Oregon, where I live) are canceling Flock Safety surveillance contracts. These systems use AI-powered cameras to read license plates, identify vehicle details, track people and even deploy camera drones over neighborhoods.
But some cities, like Dayton, Ohio, ran into a problem on Wednesday: How do they ensure the cameras stay offline while they negotiate the contract’s end? In these cases, they’ve turned to the humble black trash bag.
Local governments in both Dayton and Evanston, Illinois, covered Flock automatic license plate reader cameras with garbage bags after deciding to end their contracts, but before the cameras could be removed.
It’s a low-tech option that prevents outside agencies from accessing footage. The move highlights ongoing concerns about the trustworthiness of these surveillance systems, as well as the challenges city governments face in controlling how their own police departments use them.
Across the US, residents have called for the removal of Flock cameras following reports that data has been shared with federal agencies such as ICE, as well as concerns that local police are using the systems to track individuals, including in personal disputes.
The technology can also identify people based on physical features or clothing and allow officers to search their movements and routines, which critics, including Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, say makes abuse almost inevitable. Some reports have also raised concerns about cameras being installed in sensitive areas, such as pools and children’s gymnastics facilities.
You can read more about these issues in my guide to Flock Safety surveillance here.
Local opposition to Flock
Dayton’s problems began after a review found that its 72 Flock cameras were involved in “egregious” data-sharing violations, including 7,100 searches logged for immigration-related reasons. Police departments aren’t always required to record the reason for their Flock searches.
Dayton responded by suspending its Flock program, conducting a full audit and covering the cameras. The Dayton Police Department, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office and other regional agencies have denied the Dayton Daily News’ public records requests for audit and related records regarding the use and sharing of Flock camera data. Officials say the records are exempt, while the newspaper disputes that.
The city of Evanston, meanwhile, ordered Flock to remove its 19 cameras in 2025. City officials later found that only some had been removed and that the cameras were reinstalled days later without apparent authorization, prompting a cease-and-desist letter. In response, the city council moved to fully shut down the system to avoid further issues, costs or potential legal exposure.
Not all have turned against Flock. In Bandera, Texas, a city of 900 residents about 50 miles northwest of San Antonio, a city council member was so frustrated after the city canceled its Flock contract that he even floated a ban on cell phones and the internet.
Representatives for Flock Safety and the cities of Dayton and Evanston didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Worried about nearby Flock cameras?
The US isn’t the only country struggling with these issues. This automatic traffic cam in France was also bagged as part of a protest.
Flock cameras can be deployed by cities or private neighborhood groups. In practice, oversight and control can vary, and local governments may not always fully govern how the systems are used,
Flock surveillance cameras are often identifiable by a solar panel mounted on top. If you see them in your area, it may be worth checking local news and contacting city officials to understand how the systems are being used. You can also attend public meetings to ask questions about surveillance programs and, in many jurisdictions, request records or audits under public records laws.
It’s a good idea to understand your state and local laws regarding cameras and surveillance systems, as rules vary widely by jurisdiction. Enforcement and compliance can also differ in practice, which sometimes leads to public complaints, legal challenges or other forms of civic engagement. Residents in Boulder, Colorado, have filed a lawsuit challenging the use of Flock cameras in their community.
You can also participate in groups like the Plate Privacy Project, and contact your elected officials to support legislation that would regulate or restrict surveillance camera systems.
It’s not always easy to tell when Flock systems are in use. Some cities announce general surveillance programs without naming Flock, even when the underlying contract involves Flock Safety cameras or drones. In other cases, Flock’s software can be integrated into existing compatible camera systems, meaning new hardware may not appear even when the technology is used.
