Teddyandmia/Getty Images Flock cameras may be controversial, but they've proven to be increasingly successful in at least a few different ways: First off, law-enforcement agencies across the country have discovered that Flock makes a fantastic tool for illegally stalking people. The setups can also be great examples of how certain highway signs violate the country's safety laws. And they can provide carte blanche when it comes to harassing auto journalists, too. But perhaps Flock's biggest accomplishment may be helping to bring people across the political aisle together. While conservatives and liberals can't seem to agree on much, both groups appear united in their hate for so-called automatic license-plate readers — which can collect much more than just your plate and car information. Conservatives generally feel that Flock cameras can represent the kind of "big government" interference in citizens' lives that they typically condemn. The left reflects similar mass surveillance concerns, especially over whether vehicle surveillance could discourage undocumented immigrants from driving to work or receiving essential services for fear that their vehicle data could be shared with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Between January 2025 and August 2026, the open-source website DeFlock has counted more than 90 jurisdictions across the country either canceling or deciding not to renew their Flock contracts. These aren't all just small towns, either. Los Angeles decided not to renew its Flock deal this July after discovering the cameras generated 161 incorrect reports of stolen vehicles over a period of just two months. Flock Opposition Highlights Growing Surveillance Concerns Matt Gush/Shutterstock When diving deeper into bipartisan Flock opposition, Scott Perry, a Republican representative from Pennsylvania, comes to mind. Perry has been called a member of the "ultra-right wing," and he takes a hard line against Flock, posting on his Facebook page that "Flock and Flock-like cameras track where law-abiding people go, who they visit, and how they live — all without a warrant. I attempted to stop this with an amendment, which unfortunately failed recently in Committee; that's not the end of this, though. The mass surveillance of the American People must end." On the other side of the coin, we've got folks like Marc McGovern. As a member of Cambridge, Massachusetts' City Council, McGovern is an active Democrat who helped lead the fight to cancel the city's Flock deployment. He called the technology "terribly dangerous," and the city seemed to agree. It canceled the contract in December of 2025 – and Flock setting up cameras behind the city's back may have played a part. But here's the thing: Despite the jurisdictions highlighted by DeFlock having second thoughts about Flock, not all of them have given up on ALPR-based surveillance. There's evidence that at least some are simply replacing Flock cameras with ones from Axon, an industry rival that doesn't seem any more committed to personal privacy. Going beyond license-plate readers, Axon claims it has millions of closed-circuit TV cameras in the United States that can use AI to "recognize critical activity in live videos," and that's on top of new tools for police body cams making info available throughout the "Axon Ecosystem."