Tag: mass surveillance

Federal Judge Calls License Plate Readers a Form of Mass Surveillance

The lower instance federal courts are making their rulings regarding license plate readers (LPRs) – and they are so far coming in contradictory.

The latest is from a federal judge in Oklahoma who has no doubt that the technology is “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance” that is approaching a “dragnet type law enforcement practice” – and that the system is “constitutionally problematic” because it lets the police “indiscriminately and passively catalog your whereabouts over an extended period of time.”

US District Judge Sara E. Hill of the Northern District of Oklahoma made this and other points in her ruling in United States v. Kyle, where she said that a Tulsa County sheriff’s deputy violated the Fourth Amendment when he searched LPR systems without a warrant.

The case started with the traffic stop of a Mazda SUV with a California license plate that passed the deputy’s camera as he was parked by the highway. The judge said the deputy followed the car “for no apparent reason other than the fact that it had a California license plate.”

The vehicle was driven by Melisa Kyle, and the stop was justified as the deputy said she had changed lanes without signaling and was following another car too closely. But before he pulled her over, the deputy ran the plate through two LPR databases, Flock and VehicleManager.

The judge said this gave him access to “more than 50 individual records of Kyle’s whereabouts across the country for an entire month,” and that he had access to at least 30 days of the vehicle’s location information in many states.

The deputy used this information to help justify searching her car.

That search produced about 91 pounds of methamphetamine, and Kyle, 46, of Crane, Missouri, is now charged with possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. But the judge has ruled that the evidence was obtained illegally and suppressed it.

The ruling said the search “was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights.” The judge also suppressed “all evidence obtained after Alaniz initiated the ALPR search.”

The judge accepted that the technology has “remarkable benefits” but also asked, “why is it the government’s business where everyone goes all the time? The government cannot go snooping through our personal lives and business without an adequate basis to do so.”

In her ruling, Judge Hill also said that people “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements on a public roadway” – but that the LPR technology “becomes constitutionally problematic when law enforcement can indiscriminately and passively catalog your whereabouts over an extended period of time.”

Keep reading

House Bill Would Ban Federal Use of Flock ALPR Data

A new US bill, Ban Flock Act, has been introduced, with the aim of stopping the federal government from using automated license plate readers (ALPRs).

“Flock is eviscerating the very notion of privacy by installing tens of thousands of cameras in communities across America without their consent,” said Senator Bernie Sanders, who is planning a Senate version.

“Going to the doctor? Flock knows. Dropping your kid off at school? Flock is tracking you. Flock is always watching,” he continued.

According to the text of the House bill, H.R. 10691, federal agencies and officials are to be banned from acquiring, possessing, accessing or using ALPRs, or data collected by these devices, without an Act of Congress that explicitly authorizes it.

This would include data collected by private security networks, homeowners’ associations, commercial parking operators, and data brokers.

Any such authorization must set data retention at no more than 48 hours, and “rigorous protections for due process, privacy, free speech and association.”

State and local governments that have ALPRs would not be eligible for grants from the Justice, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Homeland Security departments.

The bill, whose sponsors in the House are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and in the Senate Jeff Merkley, also seeks to make sure that no federal money is used to buy, lease, or operate ALPRs, while evidence obtained in violation of the proposed legislation would be inadmissible in federal court.

Individuals would be able to sue for actual and punitive damages, while state attorneys general would be able to sue to enforce the ban.

Toll systems would be exempt from the ban, but the data collected would have to be deleted within 48 hours of payment, and could not be checked against a law enforcement hot list.

“AI-powered cameras are keeping track of our every move and weaponizing this data against working people to make record profits,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Merkley noted that the right to privacy includes the freedom to move around the community without every move being monitored.

The Ban Flock Act is not the first attempt of its kind – in early September, Republicans Thomas Massie and Eric Burlison introduced the Flock-Off Act, H.R. 10221, that also seeks to cut federal funding to state and local governments that use ALPRs, as well as biometric surveillance cameras.

In August, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis ordered Flock cameras to be removed from state highways within 30 days, a year after the state approved $4.6 million for 440 of these devices.

Earlier in the summer, Senator Josh Hawley launched an investigation into Flock, and later expanded it to include Axon, Motorola Solutions, and Verkada.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Rules Warrantless Flock Search Unconstitutional After Deputy Pulls Month of Driver’s Travel History — Calls System ‘Indiscriminate Mass Surveillance’

A federal judge in Oklahoma just threw out a drug case after ruling that police violated the Fourth Amendment when they used Flock Safety’s automated license-plate cameras to pull a driver’s travel history for roughly a month, without a warrant, and without probable cause.

U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill of the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that Tulsa County sheriff’s deputy Freddie Alaniz conducted an “Unconstitutional Warrantless Search” when he queried Flock and other automated license plate reader systems on a Mazda SUV simply because it had a California plate.

According to 404 Media, the search returned more than 50 records of the driver’s whereabouts across the country. Hill suppressed the Flock records and everything that came out of the later search of the vehicle.

The defendant is Melisa Kyle, 46, of Crane, Missouri, charged with possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

According to Law Commentary, the case began in May when Alaniz, who also served as a DEA task force officer, was parked along Interstate 44, saw the California plate, pulled onto the highway, and started following the SUV.

He later stopped Kyle for changing lanes without a signal, then used the Flock history to question her about her travel and to justify searching the car.

Authorities said they found about 91 pounds of methamphetamine packed in luggage, marijuana, and roughly $7,000 in cash. Hill ruled the constitutional violation happened earlier, when the deputy reached into the historical location database.

Keep reading

USPS Is Turning Mail Trucks Into Rolling Surveillance Cameras

The United States Postal Service is testing forward-facing cameras in roughly 100 delivery vehicles operating in the Washington, D.C., area, according to a labor-relations letter reported by 404 Media. The cameras, supplied by dashcam manufacturer Nextbase, are intended to scan roads, signage, and sidewalks while trucks follow their normal delivery routes.

The pilot was scheduled to begin September 21, 2026. The stated purpose is roadway and infrastructure data collection and what USPS calls “community safety,” though what happens to everything else the cameras capture remains a less-answered question.

What the Cameras Will Actually Do

The cameras begin recording when a truck leaves the postal facility and are designed to collect roadway and infrastructure data without altering driver duties.

Cameras activate when a truck shifts into drive and departs the postal facility. There is no audio recording, and the cameras face forward only, positioned so they do not obstruct the driver’s field of vision. USPS has stated that employees will not need to take any additional action.

Nextbase markets cameras capable of recording in resolutions up to 4K, with product materials noting the ability to capture license-plate details. Those are advertised product capabilities, not confirmed specifications for the units installed in the pilot.

USPS says the pilot does not use automatic license plate reader software. A camera can visually record a plate without running it through ALPR software that converts the image into a searchable database entry; those are meaningfully different functions. Whether USPS retains, processes, or searches incidentally captured plate images is not established in the available reporting.

The logic behind using mail trucks specifically comes directly from USPS Labor Relations, in a letter to National Association of Letter Carriers president Brian Renfroe: “The purpose of this pilot is to leverage the Postal Service’s unique ability to collect this valuable data due to the scale and frequency with which our fleet of postal vehicles travel the streets of every community across the country.”

The arrangement resembles dedicated roadway-mapping fleets, but relies on vehicles already in service rather than purpose-built survey cars.

Keep reading

Flock Cameras Are Moving From Roads to Watching as Drones From the Sky

A company that blanketed American roads with license-plate-reading cameras is now sending drones into the sky. Cities across America are grappling with their own debates about aid to law enforcement, coupled with concerns about privacy and surveillance.

Flock’s Drone-as-First-Responder system, or DFR, launches remotely operated drones from automated rooftop docks. A drone can be sent to a location generated by a 911 call, a license-plate-reader alert, or a gunshot-detection alert. It will then stream live video to dispatchers, officers in the field, and a real-time crime center.

The company entered the market through its 2024 acquisition of the drone firm Aerodome. They advertise high-definition video, as well as thermal imaging. Integration with the rest of its sensor network is also available.

Police have flown drones for years. However, a system that connects an emergency call to an automatically launched aircraft, a live video feed, and a crime center in one loop, tied to a company’s other data, is entirely new. Flock said drones are its fastest-growing business.

Military.com reached out to Flock Safety with questions about the program’s growth, its data policies, and the concerns raised in city debates. No response was received by publication.

Keep reading

Flock’s Optional Gunshot Detection Feature Has Fourth Amendment Implications for Gun Owners

Flock is just one of many suppliers in the global gunshot detection market, which has an estimated total value of $1.5 billion. But the company’s marketing material raises concerns about the technology’s capabilities, which go beyond simply detecting gunfire. In Flock’s own words, a confirmed gunshot “can surface the vehicles seen entering or leaving the area around the time of the sound, using nearby Flock license plate reader cameras.” That statement deserves scrutiny, since it describes a mechanism for turning suspected gunfire into a list of nearby vehicles.

Innocent gun owners could end up on such lists. Suppose a bang recorded by one of these microphones gets classified as gunfire (which it may not actually be, given the possibility of a false positive from a similar noise). That “confirmed event” can trigger an ALPR [automated license plate recognition] inquiry that sweeps in drivers who had nothing to do with the noise. In a country where more than 20 million people have carry permits and 29 states do not require them, some of those drivers will be lawfully armed. The proximity of those innocent drivers could be mistaken for evidence that they fired the shot.

This possibility raises two legal concerns for lawful gun owners. First, what justifies stopping a person on one of these lists? Second, is querying the database a search under the Fourth Amendment? Recent cases provide some answers.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen protects lawful public carry. In the 2024 case United States v. Daniels, which involved the detention of an unarmed man who did not match a 911 caller’s description of armed men, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit noted that no crime was reported. Citing Bruen, the court said it “cannot look with suspicion on citizens presumably exercising their Second Amendment rights in a lawful way.”

Last May in Commonwealth v. Foster, by contrast, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a stop where police responded within seconds to late-night alerts from a gunfire microphone, found only two people, and observed conduct the court considered evasive. An investigative stop requires reasonable suspicion based on specific facts connecting someone to suspected criminal activity. The risk here is that an alert combined with a plate match could be treated as sufficient for reasonable suspicion even though it only establishes proximity.

A recent case from New Jersey illustrates that risk. Last March, in State v. Carrillo, a state appeals court ordered suppression of evidence (an unlawfully possessed handgun) discovered in a minivan after a traffic stop. The police searched the minivan after obtaining a warrant. But the court held that a gunshot alert and an ALPR hit did not adequately connect the minivan to a shooting the day before. Prosecutors conceded that video supposedly showing muzzle flashes from the minivan at the time of the gunfire actually showed none.

Keep reading

The Pentagon Flocked Itself. Should Big Brother Be Worried?

As the headquarters to the U.S. military, the Pentagon is surrounded by billions of dollars worth of surveillance and security technology.

These systems provide multiple layers of protection for the building but they also carry a risk of backfiring: any surveillance system that is vulnerable to intruders could potentially provide unauthorized users with details about the activities of the Defense Department (DOD) and its employees. This risk is higher than usual right now because of the decision to install a controversial piece of equipment all over the Pentagon grounds: Flock cameras.

There are at least nine Flock automated license plate readers (ALPRs) currently monitoring the traffic lanes used by drivers entering the Pentagon’s parking lots, including many of the DOD’s own employees. The purpose of these cameras is to give the Pentagon’s security forces the ability to automatically record information about incoming vehicles that may pose a security risk. But if the alleged vulnerabilities of Flock cameras are as serious as the company’s critics allege, then this equipment could be exploited to obtain a detailed list of the national security officials seen entering the Pentagon each day. In this way, the Pentagon’s rush to obtain security equipment from private contractors may pose a national security risk of its own.

Concerns about the ability of Flock products to track people alongside cars has produced backlash from privacy-minded citizens, resulting in both protests and contract cancellations. Others have criticized Flock’s devices for security vulnerabilities that expose them to unauthorized users, flaws which could be especially dangerous in the context of military facilities. Flock Safety has sought to downplay these issues, insisting that they have “never been hacked.” Critics dispute this claim, pointing to multiple different ways that Flock’s devices can be accessed by unauthorized users.

These concerns prompted two members of Congress’ Intelligence committees – Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) – to write a letter last year asking for an investigation into Flock’s “negligent cybersecurity practices.” The duo alleged that the company “needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of hackers and foreign spies tapping this data.” When asked about the Pentagon’s Flock cameras, Sen. Wyden said that “Installing internet-connected cameras in the Pentagon parking lot is obviously a dumb idea. In particular, given Flock’s troubling cybersecurity track record, the Pentagon might as well send the data from those cameras directly to China, Russia and Iran.”

Keep reading

Flock Safety Wants the Map of Its Cameras Taken Down After Researcher Exposes 300,000-Device Dragnet

A surveillance company is reportedly trying to pull offline a public map showing the reach of its own network. The map, created by cybersecurity researcher Joshua Michael, identifies roughly 300,000 devices tied to Flock Safety across the country.

According to The Intercept, the map draws on location data from a snapshot of Flock’s records archived by Michael in December 2025.

It lists more than 170,000 cameras and over 130,000 other devices, including acoustic sensors and equipment that connects third-party cameras.

Flock has publicly said it operates more than 120,000 cameras. The figures reflect different counts and methods, The Intercept reported.

On Thursday, Michael received a trademark complaint from Doppel, an AI “social-engineering defense” firm that said it was acting on Flock’s behalf.

The demand: stop using the “FLOCK SAFETY” mark and take the map down, citing supposed customer confusion. The site already carries a disclaimer that it is not affiliated with Flock.

Gadget Review reported the complaint arrived less than 24 hours after the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism held its hearing titled “Always Watching: Flock’s Nationwide AI Surveillance Network.”

Keep reading

Flock And Other Tech Firms Decline Senate Testimony On Mass Surveillance

Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley and the heads of Axon Enterprise, Motorola Solutions and Verkada all declined invitations to testify before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Wednesday, as senators from both parties pressed on the surveillance networks their cameras feed. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, called the no-shows “so typical.”

Democrats weren’t any happier. “For the Flock CEOs, obviously they’re nervous about being on camera,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) went further: “Their refusal to come forward and answer questions is a sign that they have something to hide, and they are refusing to be accountable.”

Instead, the panel heard from Lindsey Isaacs, a Florida woman who spent 13 days in jail after Flock’s system wrongly flagged her car as involved in a fatal crash. She was charged with three counts of vehicular homicide. The charges have since been dropped.

As The Epoch Times notes further, While the license plate-reading cameras developed by Flock have gotten the most airtime in recent weeks – prompting nationwide, viral moments of activist vigilantes destroying or disabling the cameras amid public opposition to the technology – competitors at Axon Enterprise and Motorola offer similar options for police and local governments.

The Los Angeles Police Department is currently planning to roll out a 10-year contract with Axon, a $235 million arrangement that would equip America’s second-largest metropolis with more than 1,600 license plate readers.

For municipalities, companies like Flock, Axon, and Motorola offer a potential melding of technology and traditional surveillance tech to reduce crime and make roadways safer. But the cameras they operate have boosted a growing artificial intelligence-powered surveillance network accessible by thousands of U.S. law enforcement agencies, which critics say runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Hawley warned during the hearing that, if not addressed, this would have troubling implications for Americans.

“This is still the United States of America, and it shouldn’t be that when you walk out your door in the morning, you just have to agree in assent and accept the fact that you’re going to be on camera morning, noon, and night,” Hawley said.

“You’ll be tracked by anybody and everybody in the world. You’ll have no privacy whatsoever. You’ll be tracked when you take your kids to school and tracked when you go to church and tracked when you go to the grocery store.”

Some high-profile abuses of the data collected from these cameras have made headlines.

In one recent case, Indianapolis authorities announced that five police officers had been charged with misusing data from Flock.

Keep reading