While Flock cameras are losing favor throughout Massachusetts, there’s growing interest among public officials in placing guardrails on the technology that has been at the center of nationwide debates over law enforcement, crime solving and personal privacy.
Over the last 18 months, 25 municipalities in Massachusetts have canceled contracts with Flock Safety - the company that sells Flock cameras - or discontinued pilot programs testing the company’s cameras, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, an opponent of the technology.
The cameras, which use automated license plate recognition (ALPR) technology, usually look like black boxes mounted high on utility poles or traffic lights. They capture images of the license plate and can take pictures of other details of every vehicle that drives by. Other companies like Axon and Motorola Solutions also offer similar cameras to Flock.
The number of cameras and their locations are difficult to discern because the vendors, like Flock, have contracts with individual law enforcement agencies and usually don’t disclose them. DeFlock, a website seeking to map automated license plate readers through crowdsourcing, shows there are more than 138,000 cameras in the U.S., including 1,187 in Massachusetts.
Last week, a Suffolk County Superior Court judge ruled that the Massachusetts State Police must release documents showing the agency’s audit logs on its use of automated license plate readers and the camera locations that the ACLU of Massachusetts sought under a public records request in 2023.
According to court records obtained from the ACLU of Massachusetts, the State Police argued that information was exempt from public records requests, but the judge found the agency did not provide enough evidence to back its argument.
“The Massachusetts State Police is reviewing the court’s decision. The Department recognizes the importance of transparency while balancing the need to protect sensitive information related to law enforcement operations and investigations,” Sarah Burgess, chief community affairs officer for the Massachusetts State Police, said in a Sept. 4 statement to the News Service. “MSP maintains strong policies and safeguards governing the appropriate use of automatic license plate reader technology, including highly restrictive controls on access, authorized use and oversight.”
Less than 2% of department members can query the ALPR data, which is not shared with the public or publicly available, according to the agency. Massachusetts State Police ALPR system queries are also subject to monitoring, review and audit. Only those whose official duties require getting the ALPR data and who have completed specialized training on privacy considerations can access the data. Also, ALPR search requests must include a case number or reference, the reason for the request, the requested time period and geographic area, according to the agency.
The technology has stirred debate in Massachusetts and across the country as some have raised concerns over data privacy and potential inappropriate use of the technology and data it collects by law enforcement officers.
Supporters say the technology can help law enforcement officials solve cases more effectively. According to Flock’s website, the company’s technology detected more than 1,000 missing people and 20,000 stolen cars in July alone. Also, a recent analysis of the response to the December 2025 shooting at Brown University found Flock cameras and license plate reader data helped law enforcement agents locate the shooter.
Gideon Epstein, policy counsel for the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the technology can be an effective law enforcement tool with the right guardrails.
“But the problem is, we effectively have none of those guardrails in place at the moment,” Epstein said.
Asked for her take on the technology, Gov. Maura Healey’s office referred the News Service to the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, the secretariat that oversees the Massachusetts State Police.
“Law enforcement needs tools to keep people safe, but those tools must be used responsibly and with strong protections for people’s rights and privacy,” EOPSS spokesperson Brenna Galvin said in a statement. “We support efforts to add appropriate safeguards to technology used to support public safety and investigations, and we will continue to monitor this topic and remain in close contact with our partners.”
Rep. Steve Owens, a Democrat from Watertown, filed legislation (H 3755) that implements guidelines and restrictions on how law enforcement can use automated license plate readers and data collected by the technology. Watertown canceled its contract with Flock in January.
The bill “establishing driver privacy protections” was apparently not controversial for the Transportation Committee, whose House members endorsed it with an 11-0 vote in March. It has been pending in the House Committee on Ways and Means since.
The legislation bars anyone “under color of law” from accessing data from other entities without a warrant, according to the Transportation Committee’s bill summary. Under the bill, data collected from the technology could be retained for up to 14 days, unless it’s in connection with a criminal investigation. The legislation also bars government actors from using the technology to monitor constitutionally protected activities.
In August, Flock recommended that customers implement a default seven-day data retention period, down from the previous 30 days, along with a slew of other changes aimed at improving privacy, security and transparency.
“These changes reflect years of work and deliberation. They are not the end of that work, but simply the continuation of our commitment to both safety and privacy,” the company said in a blog post announcing the changes. “We are not perfect, so we will keep listening, improving, and building a better standard for public safety technology together.”
Owens, who filed the legislation with Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa in January 2025, said the bill’s concept had been floating around on Beacon Hill for a while, but has become more timely since controversy surrounding the technology has spread.
“So, I’ve been kind of following the ALPR topic since then, and really nothing that has happened since then has given me any confidence that this technology is working the way it’s supposed to be,” Owens told the News Service. “Every few days we get an article about how some police officer used it to stalk a, you know, ex-partner or somebody inappropriately. We get news that folks from out of state are using it potentially to track down folks seeking reproductive or gender affirming care and we have no real – you know there’s no real control over that.”
In a statement to the News Service, a spokesperson for Flock said the company supports “thoughtful, bipartisan legislation that puts strong privacy, transparency, and accountability guardrails in place while preserving law enforcement’s ability to use technology responsibly to keep people safe.”
“Flock’s technology is an important public safety tool for law enforcement agencies across America, helping officers solve serious crimes and find missing people,” Flock’s spokesperson said.
Owens said he became interested in the topic when he noticed that automated license plate readers were legal in Massachusetts, but the state can’t issue tickets to drivers caught running red lights by camera.
“So, we have this kind of backwards system where you know we can surveil everybody, but we can’t use it to stop people from running red lights or speeding through school zones,” Owens said. “So, that was when I first started thinking about this. Because if we are going to have safety cameras for enforcement – automated enforcement - it needs to have guardrails, which got me thinking about the guardrails around the other Flock style ALPRs.”
Now that scheduled formal sessions have ended for the legislative term, Owens said, “I don’t know that the rules really favor that right now” when asked about the chances of the legislation coming up for a vote.
A six-person conference committee is hashing out final details of data privacy legislation (S 2619 / H 5479) and Owens said “there may be some implications” for protecting data collected by automated license plate readers in that bill.
“We’ll have to see what comes out of that process,” Owens said. “But I will say that I’ve been getting a lot of calls from my colleagues across the state as more and more communities kind of revolt against these cameras.”
Owens plans to file another version of the legislation next session that he says would reflect the ongoing debate about the technology.
Elsewhere in the country, state officials have been cracking down on the technology.
In March, Washington enacted a law, dubbed the “Driver Privacy Act,” regulating how law enforcement agencies can use ALPR technology with provisions banning use of the technology for immigration enforcement, constitutionally protected activities and at locations like protected health care facilities. Also, the law sets a 21-day limit for retaining data collected by ALPR technology, with some exceptions like when it’s permitted under a court order.
On Aug. 31, the Florida Department of Transportation issued a memorandum rescinding permits for ALPR technology installed within the right of way on a road on the State Highway System, citing the “recent exponential increase in deployments along our roadways, coupled with concerning reports of misuse, data privacy concerns, and surveillance schemes.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has called the technology “out of control.” In August, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered all state agencies to pause funding for Flock cameras, according to reporting by The Texas Tribune.
