Ordinary Americans are pushing back against the license-plate tracking surveillance state — and winning. Police departments in Massachusetts are terminating contracts with Flock Safety's automated license plate recognition system after sustained public pressure, while lawmakers in Anchorage are moving to slap enforceable limits on a sprawling $11.8 million surveillance center before it expands further.
The stakes are straightforward: every time your car passes a Flock camera, your location gets logged, timestamped, and stored in a database that can be shared across jurisdictions. That's not policing. That's a dragnet, and the Fourth Amendment wasn't written to permit it.
Easton Police Chief Keith Boone announced Saturday the department is terminating its Flock contract — originally set to run through October 2027 — at the end of this October. Flock was notified Aug. 25. The two cameras on Depot Street and Foundry Street, installed on a trial basis in October 2024, already have their network-sharing capabilities disabled, according to MassLive.
Boone said he made the call after "closely monitored public sentiment and listened to the concerns and opinions of residents" and held "many candid conversations with Easton residents who reached out to me with questions about LPR technology and how it is utilized by our department."
Boone acknowledged Flock's tech aided investigations into "the shooting of a juvenile, sexual assaults, breaking and entering cases, and several other" cases. But he concluded: "Our responsibility extends far beyond protecting public safety. It is also about listening to and serving our community, being transparent in how we operate, and most importantly, earning and maintaining the trust that is the foundation of effective policing."
Easton isn't alone. Bellingham, Auburn, Stow, and several other Massachusetts communities have recently announced plans to terminate, suspend, or reevaluate their Flock contracts, MassLive reported. The backlash intensified following claims of misuse by Massachusetts officers.
Out west, Anchorage is wrestling with the same question at scale. The Anchorage Police Department's Real-Time Crime Center already routes up to 750 camera feeds alongside license-plate readers and drone footage under that $11.8 million technology package the Assembly approved last year. Now APD wants another $600,000 in equipment. Some Assembly members are refusing to approve the expansion until enforceable privacy protections are in place.
An ordinance from Assembly members Keith McCormick, Sydney Scout, and Vice Chair Daniel Volland would draw a hard line between investigating a specific crime and continuously watching the public. Under the proposal, police could monitor cameras during active crimes, missing-person cases, or documented felony investigations — but random "virtual patrols" and continuous crowd scanning would be banned. Officers would need to enter a case number, state a reason, identify the cameras, and get supervisory approval before opening a live feed. Surveillance would auto-cut after 60 minutes unless a supervisor documented why more time was needed.
License-plate readers would be limited to serious public-safety purposes — stolen vehicles, missing persons, felony investigations — and could not be used to enforce parking rules, expired registration, or traffic infractions. Footage would be auto-deleted after 14 days unless preserved as evidence. And Anchorage would be barred from joining outside surveillance networks that let agencies across the country search one another's data — a direct response to the national backlash against Flock's vast cross-jurisdictional camera network.
The Anchorage Daily News editorial board noted the corporate distinction should offer "only so much comfort": Anchorage uses Axon, Flock's direct competitor, for its body cameras and surveillance. Swap the logo on the camera housing; the constitutional problem remains.
The question now is whether these are isolated retreats or the start of a sustained rollback. Flock and its competitors have built a nationwide tracking infrastructure one municipal contract at a time. Dismantling it will require the same approach — one town, one hearing, one ordinance at a time.
