James Leynse/Getty Images Dayton, Ohio's utility poles are sporting new accessories this week in the form of a black trash bag. Police and local authorities are working to cover the controversial Flock cameras installed throughout the city as they try to figure out how to severe ties with the company. The rush to cover them follows what 404 Media reports as "months of resident outrage, a scandal in which the city was sharing Flock camera data for immigration enforcement apparently on accident, and a $30,000 audit into how the cameras are being used." It's been a chaotic several months for Dayton dealing with its Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) data and Flock. Last October, officials found out data was "accidentally" shared with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That embarrassing error, Dayton Police Chief Kamran Afzal said in a recent press conference, came down to a selection in the software to not share data. This month, the city's own Dayton Daily News published an investigative report that also found "law enforcement agencies across Ohio and the United States conduct thousands of searches of local police data every single day. In January alone, hundreds of local searches listed "immigration" as a search reason." It also found that some agencies were not clear in why they were requesting ALPR data, with either vague responses or in some instances just put down as "other." If it looks like mass surveillance, it might be mass surveillance... bluestork/Shutterstock ALPRs, if you're unfamiliar, are cameras used to scan vehicles and license plates in public spaces that store and record that data along with the model, make, year, color of a vehicle with times and locations for about 30 days (that depends on the user agreement and can be different). According to Flock, the "user," typically a municipal system, is in control of that data, including its release for legal orders. But the data sharing has often been flagged as being a little lot more liberal than projected. Just last week, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure voted on an amendment to the BUILD America 250 Act that would have restricted federal infrastructure funding to states utilizing ALPR technology for anything other than processing tolls. The amendment didn't make the cut, but there was an overall consensus among lawmakers that bigger conversations should be had around ALPR cameras and Fourth Amendment protections, because most felt the waters there are still a bit murky. For instance, Wired reported the aforementioned amendment was fueled by an audit done by Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias' office. It found that Flock had violated state law by providing US Customs and Border protection access to Illinois ALPR data. Giannoulias ordered the company to cut off federal access immediately. Flock went on to pause federal pilots nationwide, despite having denied at an earlier time that such relationships with the company existed. Put a defense down, flip it and reverse it James Leynse/Getty Images Flock on the other hand, adamantly defends its system, saying its technology is not a form of mass surveillance. It called out civil rights organizations for being "too broad" on their definition of "what constitutes surveillance." Yet at the same time, Flock recognized that there is misuse of its products (i.e. inappropriate searches). It quickly shrugs off the responsibility though, stating misuse is a marginal issue and one that requires supervision, training and responsibility on the user's (municipality/agency) end. But that doesn't excuse its data sharing with the Feds. More problematic, Flock recently updated the company's directives for cooperating with the federal government. Published March 20, Flock said the relationship is "built on the same foundation of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties that underpins our entire company." It's also quick to point out it does not have contracts with ICE or DHS. Flock uses the opportunity to reaffirm the necessity in sharing data for events like sex trafficking, kidnappings and violent crimes. Yet it fails to consider the reality that outside of ICE or DHS, other agencies and municipalities have made directive targets by rephrasing what in Flock's words are a "violent criminal," "active fugitive," or "dangerous suspect" to fit their own agendas. It's become a surveillance tool. And an important one at that, as 404 Media reported that Flock is a potential contender to earn a special contract with the FBI which hopes to gain access to license plate readers nationwide. I always feel like, somebody's watching me Smith Collection/gado/Getty Images Right now, Dayton remains on the path to get cameras removed entirely and hopefully the process goes more smoothly than it did for Evanston. When the Illinois city terminated its contract in August of last year, Flock did remove the bag-covered cameras. But the city claimed Flock later reinstalled them without its permission and that the cameras were actively collecting information. The Evanston Roundtable later found new data post-removal in Flock's publicly available data. Evanston responded with a cease-and-desist letter to Flock and again, worked to re-cover cameras with trash bags. Flock finally removed the second round of cameras in early 2026. Sure, the cameras recording information are intended to be used on grounds of traffic violations and major crimes. However, the argument that's consistently missed is what's being done with the data they are collecting and how it is shared and accessed outside of traffic violations and actual emergencies. What data is and isn't protected, or what's considered private data when it comes to ALPRs is right now just as vague as the agencies and Flock's "reasons" for searching and sharing it. Without appropriate guardrails from states and at the Federal level, the data is becoming a free for all open to almost anyone to use for their own questionable agendas.
+50 others
