Flock AI – Automated license plate readers from Flock Security have surged across the United States, with more than 100,000 units installed nationwide. But the system’s reach—powered by AI searches, shared access for police, and weak safeguards—has triggered public backl
For many people, the first sign that a neighborhood has been swept into a surveillance network doesn’t come from a headline. It comes from a knock at the door.
In September 2025, Denver financial advisor Chrisanna Elser says a Columbine police officer, Sgt. Jamie Milliman, arrived and delivered a summons for theft. Milliman told her she’d been caught on camera stealing a package from a front door.
In Ring doorbell footage from the incident, Milliman can be heard saying, “You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing.”
Elser later argued she had been wrongly implicated. Her Rivian truck has cameras, and she was able to provide footage from the day of the alleged crime—showing she didn’t stop while driving through the area from which the package was stolen. The charges were eventually dropped.
That outcome didn’t stop the cameras from spreading, or the argument from getting louder. Flock Security’s automated license plate readers—often shortened to ALPRs—log the movements of cars passing in their field of view. They’re widely mounted along roadways, but they can do more than read plates. Flock also sells AI surveillance cameras that can be searched using natural language. allowing footage to be pulled up based on descriptions of people or vehicles.
With the rise of AI, this kind of surveillance has proliferated quickly across the United States. The company has become a lightning rod for public opinion, and backlash has been widespread.
Flock cameras are often described as license plate readers, but that framing misses how they’re actually used. Even without a license plate. law enforcement officers can search for details such as a “green sedan with American flag bumper sticker” or a “pickup truck with paint scratches on left side and dirt bike in truck bed.”.
The underlying system is built around a simple premise: type what you’re looking for, and the network will show footage it believes matches the description. That capability is different from traditional traffic cams where someone must manually review video to find a specific vehicle or person.
Flock cameras operate like small computers. They run a modified version of Android and wirelessly transmit footage to a database. There, it’s cataloged using AI for searched natural language queries by anyone with access to the system. Flock contracts with cities, towns, neighborhoods and businesses.
While the network can be restricted to a contracted area, many departments connect to a nationwide network. The ACLU of Massachusetts pointed to the reach of that access. saying police as far away as Texas can search Flock footage. Flock does not have a direct contract with federal law enforcement agencies. but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Homeland Security agencies are often granted access through data sharing programs with local police departments—a practice described as beginning before Flock arrived.
In Denver, the ACLU of Colorado obtained logs showing that local police conducted more than 1,400 searches on ICE’s behalf as of August.
The broader scale helps explain why the system draws such strong reactions. Supporters emphasize usefulness in investigations; the article notes that Flock has helped solve at least one murder case and take down a vehicle smash-and-grab operation. But the same AI-enhanced capability that can flag a suspect also tracks everyone—innocent people included.
Security flaws have only added fuel.
Flock has insisted its cameras are secure. Yet vulnerabilities have repeatedly been exposed by independent researchers, including Benn Jordan—a musician and YouTuber with no formal background in cybersecurity research.
In December 2025. Jordan said he found at least 70 Flock Safety cameras were exposed to the Internet and could be accessed through a commercial search engine. The report describes cases where no password was required to view live footage of children at parks. couples having intimate arguments. and other moments people did not know were being surveilled. Many exposed cameras were identified as Condor cameras that track people, not vehicles.
Jordan also described being able to record Flock’s response to his earlier investigations onto a Flock Condor camera and then download that footage to include in his video.
The work built on earlier findings from November. when Jordan and researcher John Gaines said they were able to exploit multiple security holes. With physical access to outdoor cameras. they reportedly pressed a physical button. connected over Wi‑Fi. debugged with basic Android development tools. and gained root access—along with the ability to install malware. The article also says exposed USB ports were vulnerable to a malicious USB drive.
Instead of embracing bug bounty scrutiny, Flock responded by smearing Jordan and other security researchers as “activist groups who want to defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness.”
Even when the cameras are working as designed, the access can still be a problem.
The article describes a lack of guardrails. It says a warrant is rarely required for a database search and there is no paperwork. Police misuse is presented as recurring: the reporting cites dozens of documented instances where cops allegedly used Flock to track the whereabouts of ex-girlfriends. current partners. and other individuals.
In many cases. the stalking was discovered only after victims checked their own information using tools such as HaveIBeenFlocked and saw their locations had been searched hundreds of times. The article warns that only cases where officers are caught and arrested or fired are visible. suggesting a broader pattern may be hiding.
Flock told 404 Media that “15 incidents of abuse” had surfaced because of “the transparency and accountability features” built into its platform, and said its Audit Assistance tool “proactively flags unintended use.”
There are also alleged internal issues. The article says a report from 404 Media found Flock employees watching children swimming in a pool and during gymnastics classes at the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta. then showing those camera feeds to police departments as part of a sales demo. Flock responded by writing. in part. that the employees being named online were “well-intentioned employees” who accessed the camera network with the city’s explicit permission as part of their job—and are now being called predators.
When the system doesn’t require abuse to harm, the results can still be brutal.
Denver’s contract offers one example of how AI-driven identification can collide with ordinary life. In May 2024, Denver installed 111 cameras across the city. The contract was renewed in 2025 after Mayor Mike Johnston overruled a unanimous city council vote against the extension.
Errors can be small and still devastating. The article describes Colorado drivers pulled over and treated as suspected criminals when Flock ALPRs mistook the number zero for the letter “O,” or vice versa.
It also describes one driver saying his safety is at risk because officers are alerted every time a Flock camera sees his vehicle, and that police claimed they were unable to remove him from their hotlist.
After widespread protest, including a packed town hall in October attended by city council members and nationally known privacy advocates, Denver cancelled its Flock contract and awarded it to Axon, a company that already provides body cameras to police departments.
That turn didn’t end the questions—especially around why cities keep signing up.
The article points to reasons ranging from citizen disenfranchisement to restrictive contracts. It says average citizens dislike the technology. especially marginalized groups most likely to be targeted by AI surveillance. yet they often have little to no say. Flock markets directly to law enforcement. and the article portrays that as a strong draw for police and pro-law-enforcement city officials.
Despite “little evidence” that Flock cameras reduce crime, the company markets them as crime-stopping and deterrence tools.
In Denver. Mayor Johnston defended keeping Flock’s services by claiming in a 9News interview that the cameras aided in solving the murder of a transgender woman. Jax Gratton. whose body was found in Lakewood. The article says the mayor’s claims were doubly false—stating that Flock did not assist in the case and that no arrest had been made. Gratton’s mother is said to have publicly demanded a forthcoming apology from the mayor.
Contracts make exit harder. The article describes how when Dayton, Ohio and Evanston, Illinois wanted to end their deals, they were unsure whether removing the cameras would constitute a breach of contract. Their solution was to cover the cameras with garbage bags.
To check what’s nearby, the article notes the map created by DeFlock, an open-source tool tracking the proliferation of ALPR cameras.
Put together, the story isn’t only about a device mounted on a pole. It’s about access—who can search it, how fast problems surface, and what happens when software, policy, and policing move faster than safeguards.
Flock Security ALPR automated license plate readers AI surveillance cameras cybersecurity vulnerabilities police surveillance ACLU Denver Axon ICE data sharing privacy advocates DeFlock