The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the United States, has opted not to renew its contract with surveillance technology company Flock Safety. The decision, which saw the three-year agreement expire on Sunday, 12 July 2026, stems from what the LAPD describes as “serious concerns” regarding civil liberties and the privacy implications of the data collected by Flock’s extensive network of license plate cameras.
Dean Gialamas, the LAPD's chief information officer, confirmed the department's stance, stating that the contract's termination was a direct result of issues surrounding privacy, data security, and the sharing of information gathered by the cameras. While the LAPD is reportedly seeking new contractual language to address these concerns, for now, the partnership has ended. This move by a major police department like the LAPD signals a significant shift in how law enforcement is approaching the use of advanced surveillance tools.
Flock Safety operates a network of at least 80,000 cameras across the United States, designed to scan license plates and assist police and federal agencies in tracking vehicles. The company, based in Atlanta, Georgia, maintains control over the operation of these cameras. However, the LAPD is not alone in its apprehension; several other US cities, including Mountain View, California, and South Portland, Maine, have also previously ended their agreements with Flock, citing privacy worries and concerns that federal immigration officials were potentially using the cameras to track individuals, potentially violating local sanctuary city policies.
The surveillance company expressed surprise at the LAPD's decision, with a spokesperson indicating confidence in their ability to resolve what they termed “misconceptions” that led to the contract’s expiry. However, Flock has faced increasing backlash from local communities, with some instances of residents physically disabling cameras. The company has also been under scrutiny for alleged security lapses, which have reportedly exposed camera feeds and data, and for failing to implement robust security measures like multi-factor authentication for police user logins.
Incidents involving false positives and errors from license plate readers have also drawn criticism, with documented cases of motorists being wrongly detained. One recent report detailed a journalist being tracked and confronted by police after a Flock camera mistakenly flagged a vehicle he was driving as stolen. These issues underscore the complex balance between public safety and individual privacy rights in the age of pervasive surveillance technology.