The Privacy Backlash That's Uniting Left and Right: Why Flock Cameras Are Becoming a Bipartisan Battleground

In July, the small mountain community of Macon County, North Carolina, became a microcosm of a national movement. In a packed government building, Republican Commissioner Josh Young watched with disbelief as work boots and Subarus filled the parking lot, a stark symbol of an unusual alliance forming against a common foe.

“It was a bipartisan issue within our community,” Young later told POLITICO. “We had work boots and Subarus in our parking lot and they were united in their position against the Flock cameras”.

The issue that united them? A network of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) that critics say has grown faster than governments can enact safeguards. With over 127,000 cameras across the United States and Puerto Rico, according to the advocacy group DeFlock, the system now constitutes one of the largest vehicle-monitoring networks in the country. And the backlash against it is becoming a rare point of bipartisan agreement in an increasingly polarized nation.

The Surveillance State Next Door

Flock cameras are solar-powered ALPRs that capture license plates and vehicle details make, model, color, bumper stickers, roof racks creating what Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs described as a “vehicle fingerprint”. The data is stored in searchable databases for up to 30 days or more.

“They're just collecting data as an active surveillance system,” said Jacobs, a former WWE wrestler known as “Kane”. “And then it's retained for sometimes 30 days or more and then in a searchable database, which really turns the whole concept of a license plate reader on its head in that they're not looking for one specific vehicle or specific vehicles. They're just pulling everything in”.

Police departments have used the technology to recover stolen vehicles, identify suspects, and locate missing persons. Flock says it has partnered with more than 7,000 law enforcement agencies and over 6,000 private sector customers. But the network's rapid expansion has triggered a wave of resistance that transcends traditional political divides.

Libertarians: The Original Watchdogs

Libertarians have long warned Americans about privacy issues regarding ALPRs. The party views the cameras as government intrusion on private lives, creating continuous profiles of a person's movements. They point to the technology as a form of mass surveillance that threatens the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Republicans: Focusing on the Database

For many Republicans, the cameras themselves aren't the issue; the database of vehicle movements is. Some have noted the databases can be used to compile information such as where people drive, worship, seek medical care, or attend political events. The records can also be retained long-term, creating a permanent record of citizens' movements.

The most aggressive restriction proposals have come from Republican congressmen. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) introduced a bill in July that would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing, operating, or accessing automated surveillance technologies, including license plate readers. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) plans to introduce legislation prohibiting federal funding for police departments that deploy Flock or similar systems. Texas Rep. Keith Self has introduced legislation requiring federal authorities to obtain a warrant before accessing Flock data.

Democrats: Immigration Fears and Civil Rights

While Democrats share many of the same concerns, the pushback intensified last year over fears that ALPR data would be used in federal immigration crackdowns. These concerns escalated after U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security began pilot programs using Flock data, which were paused shortly after due to widespread backlash.

Democrats worry that undocumented immigrants may avoid work, medical care, or other services out of concern their vehicle information could be shared with ICE. In July, a group of 15 Michigan Democrats sent a letter to the state's Department of Transportation to cease all contracts with federal agencies allowing them to install ALPRs on state property.

The Misuse Problem

The backlash has been sharpened by allegations of misuse. An investigation by The Washington Post found that at least 50 police officers had been accused of abusing the Flock system, most often to monitor the movements of romantic partners or former partners. Other reports said officers illegally passed data to immigration agents.

“The really disturbing aspect is when they're deployed in large numbers, they can, and they have been used to track individuals' movements without a warrant,” Jacobs told NewsNation. “We do not have an expectation of privacy on public streets or in public places, but the government is not supposed to surveil us and spy on us without a warrant”.

Grassroots Resistance

Several grassroots efforts have emerged nationwide. In October 2024, the group DeFlock was founded to track ALPRs across the country. The ACLU has launched a campaign called “Get the Flock Out”. A national “Week of Action Against ALPRs” is slated for August 16-22, with over 75 cities confirmed to participate.

In some cases, citizens have taken matters into their own hands. On Aug. 1, police in Winona, Minnesota, discovered that all of the city's Flock cameras were missing. In Cranston, Rhode Island, a man climbed a pole and cut the wire on one of the city's 29 cameras. License plate readers have been shot at in Tennessee, hit with a truck in California, beat with a baseball bat in Virginia, cut down with a saw in Texas, and splattered with paint in New York.

Local Governments Push Back

The resistance is translating into policy action. In July alone, over 20 local jurisdictions either stopped using Flock cameras or began the process of doing so the highest monthly total since DeFlock began tracking in 2021. Twenty-three jurisdictions nationwide have now voted to cancel or reject Flock cameras.

In Macon County, the Board of Commissioners unanimously voted to stop funding Flock cameras and terminate their contract. In Connecticut, state senators have called for a voluntary pause on new installations. In Florida, the debate has seeped into the gubernatorial race, with Republican frontrunner Byron Donalds calling for a “full pause” on Flock camera contracts.

Flock's Defense

Flock and police agencies continue to defend the network, saying the cameras capture information already visible on public roadways and are used to investigate crimes not monitor civilians. The company says it doesn't sell customer data to third parties or use facial recognition.

“Customers determine who within their organization can view or search their data,” Flock stated in a recent blog post. “Flock does not grant outside access or share customer data without the customer's permission”.

But for critics, the company's assurances miss the point. “For people in the center or the non-politically engaged are even like 'I don't want to be tracked everywhere I go,'” said Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “And so there's different reasons, but everyone is arriving at the same position, which is mass government surveillance in this country has gotten completely out of control and needs to be reined in immediately”.

What It Would Take to Ban ALPRs

Action could be taken at any level of government local, state, or federal through canceling vendor contracts, enacting legislation prohibiting third-party mass surveillance, or restricting data sharing. Bills are already circulating in Congress, and state lawmakers are working on legislation in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere.

For now, Flock continues to expand. “So far in 2026, for every city that has chosen not to renew its agreement, approximately seven new cities have partnered with Flock,” the company noted. But as the bipartisan backlash grows, local officials and electoral candidates are taking notice and taking action.

The fight over Flock cameras represents a rare moment of political unity in a divided nation. Concerns about privacy, government overreach, and the unchecked expansion of surveillance technology have brought together libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, and civil liberties advocates in an unlikely coalition.

“We want police to have every tool that they need to be able to do their jobs effectively,” Jacobs said. “But that has to remain within the confines of the Constitution”.

Whether through local ordinances, state legislation, or federal action, the battle over the growing network of automatic license plate readers is far from over. And in a political landscape defined by division, the fact that both sides are finding common ground on this issue might just be the most surprising development of all.