Surveillance company Flock generates controversy — and a roster of L.A. clients

Other cities have ended their relationships with Flock Safety over its ties to the federal government and concerns about cybersecurity and privacy, but connections in the L.A. area endure.

Mar. 3, 2026 at 12:47am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The surveillance company Flock Safety has faced backlash in some cities over its data-sharing with federal authorities and cybersecurity concerns, leading to the cancellation of contracts. However, Flock continues to have an eager customer base in Los Angeles, where the company has aggressively marketed its automated license plate reader technology to law enforcement, homeowners associations, and businesses.

Why it matters

The use of Flock's license plate readers raises concerns about privacy and the potential tracking of law-abiding citizens without a warrant, as well as the ability of federal authorities to access this data and undermine Los Angeles' status as a haven for immigrants.

The details

Flock's AI-powered cameras not only record license plate numbers but also document other vehicle details like make, model, color, and distinctive markings. This allows police to potentially retrace the whereabouts of suspects and receive predictions about their future movements. While LAPD officials say the data is only accessible to a few smaller agencies, critics argue that the information could still be shared with federal authorities like ICE, aiding in deportation efforts.

  • In recent months, dozens of cities have cut ties with Flock over fears that data the company captures is helping power President Trump's mass deportation campaign.
  • Since the beginning of 2025, a small-but-growing number of states and cities have enacted laws aimed at curbing the use of surveillance technology such as license plate readers.

The players

Flock Safety

An Atlanta-based company that is the nation's largest provider of automated digital license plate readers, which it has aggressively marketed to law enforcement, homeowners associations, and businesses.

LAPD

The Los Angeles Police Department, which has embraced Flock's license plate reader technology and touts its use at community meetings.

Hannah Bloch-Wehba

A professor of law at Texas A&M University who argues that Flock's meteoric rise is a triumph of marketing over results, as there is little evidence on the actual impact of these technologies on violent crime rates.

Hamid Khan

An organizer with the activist group Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, which has urged the Police Commission to rewrite the LAPD's policies to ensure information on law-abiding drivers isn't shared with federal authorities.

Sean Elo-Rivera

A San Diego City Councilmember who voted against working with Flock based on the company's poor track record of 'data retention' and 'consumer protections.'

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“These can be really powerful tools to find someone, and identity them. But when you don't have a suspect, everyone can be a suspect.”

— Hannah Bloch-Wehba, Professor of Law

“License plate readers play a critical role in providing directions and a road map to ICE for going out to kidnap people.”

— Hamid Khan, Organizer, Stop LAPD Spying Coalition

“We have a presidential regime that is not only flouting the law, but takes pride in ignoring due process, in violating rights of people they deem unworthy of the rights and protections. They have a by-any-means-necessary approach when it comes to immigration enforcement. And now they have a tool that makes it very easy for them to track people down.”

— Sean Elo-Rivera, San Diego City Councilmember

What’s next

The Los Angeles Police Commission is expected to complete a study on the department's license plate reader system this summer, which could lead to changes in the LAPD's policies regarding data sharing and privacy protections.

The takeaway

Flock's aggressive marketing and expansion of its automated license plate reader technology in Los Angeles, despite concerns raised in other cities, highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between public safety and civil liberties in the use of surveillance tools by law enforcement and private entities.