Key Takeaways
- The ACLU says Flock Safety has repeatedly made inaccurate or misleading claims about its ALPR systems, data access, and privacy protections.
- In Oshkosh, Wisconsin, officials approved a Flock contract and then revoked it the next day after learning the company’s statement about heat maps was false.
- The source argues that governments should be cautious about believing vendor assurances and should demand stronger guardrails if they use ALPRs at all.
What happened
The core dispute in the source centers on automatic license plate readers, or ALPRs, and on how Flock Safety has described what its systems can do. In one Oshkosh, Wisconsin, city council meeting, a council member asked whether Flock’s system could create heat maps showing where a vehicle had driven over time. Flock’s chief information security officer said the system did not “create a pattern or heat map of an individual’s movement.” The council approved the contract that night.
The next morning, Oshkosh learned that the statement was false. The city later reconvened, and officials criticized Flock for giving inaccurate information. Deputy Mayor Joe Stephenson said he could not govern if someone gave “untruths” or “mistruths,” and Mayor Matt Mugerauer said he did not want to work with a company that gave bad information. The council then voted to immediately revoke the approval, which the source says set a record for the shortest time between approval and cancellation of a Flock contract.
According to the source, Flock later acknowledged that its ALPR system does generate a “heat map” showing where point-in-time vehicle images have been captured for up to a month. The company then responded by criticizing Oshkosh officials and describing the misstatement as “one small misconception” and a “minor nuance.”
The ACLU article argues that Oshkosh was not an isolated case. It says Flock has repeatedly misled the public, elected officials, and potential government customers about its business practices, safety record, privacy commitments, and support for vulnerable populations.
One example cited is Loveland, Colorado, where police raised concerns that federal agencies were accessing local ALPR data. Flock reportedly told the police chief that federal agencies no longer had access and had its CEO tell the press that there was no federal data-sharing problem because the company had no federal contracts. The source says later information showed Flock did have contracts with Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security for pilot projects that gave those agencies direct access to license data. The CEO later said the company had “communicated poorly” and that public statements had been inaccurate.
The source also discusses prior reports that local police departments shared Flock data and search results with immigration agencies such as ICE and CBP. Flock responded with a blog post saying ICE did not have direct access to Flock cameras, systems, or data, and that the customer owned and controlled the license data. The ACLU argues that this answer sidestepped the real issue: indirect access through police customers. The article says Flock ultimately conceded that its denials were not credible, though its CEO argued that immigration enforcement was not Flock’s problem.
The article further says Flock tried to address concerns about cross-state abortion enforcement by introducing a “Proactive Search Term Tool” as part of “New Product Solutions to Strengthen Compliance.” But the ACLU says the tool can be easily bypassed because police can enter vague terms such as “investigation” or even non-substantive entries in the search reason field. The source cites examples from an Oregon department that, in September 2025, was allowed to use “investigation” 111 times and “hehehe” 20 times. On that basis, the article argues the tool does not meaningfully prevent improper use.
The source also says Flock falsely claimed to have partnered with the ACLU. It points to a state-level legislative fight in New Mexico, where Flock’s public affairs director claimed on social media that the company had worked with the ACLU of New Mexico to craft and pass a bill. The article says that was not true and adds that, in 2021, Flock also told Urbana, Illinois, city council members that it had worked with groups like the ACLU to design its ALPR system. The ACLU says neither it nor its affiliates have ever partnered with Flock on ALPR design.
Why it matters
The technology issue here is not just whether ALPR systems are controversial. It is whether government buyers can rely on the vendor’s claims about how those systems work, what data they produce, and who can access that data.
The source frames that as a basic procurement and oversight problem. If a company is inaccurate about product behavior in a city council meeting, the concern is that the same company may be shaping policy debates with incomplete or misleading information. That matters because local governments often rely on vendor presentations when deciding whether to adopt surveillance tools.
The article also raises a broader software and privacy question: ALPR systems are not simply cameras. They are data platforms with retention settings, search functions, sharing arrangements, and policy controls. The ACLU’s criticism focuses on how those features can be described in ways that appear reassuring while still allowing data use beyond what officials or the public may expect.
For public agencies, the practical takeaway in the source is caution. The ACLU argues that governments should be skeptical of Flock’s assurances and, if they use ALPRs at all, should impose strict limits on retention, sharing, and the crimes for which the systems can be used.
What to watch
Going forward, the key question is whether more local governments reexamine their contracts, procurement standards, or oversight rules after disputes like Oshkosh. The source suggests that trust in vendor statements may become a central issue in future council meetings and police reviews.
It will also be important to watch whether Flock changes how it describes heat maps, federal access, data sharing, and compliance tooling in public-facing materials. The ACLU’s position is that the company has repeatedly minimized or obscured important capabilities, so any future claims may face higher scrutiny.
Finally, the article points to a policy debate that is still unresolved: whether ALPR systems should be used more narrowly, with strict guardrails, or avoided entirely. The source argues that governments should at minimum require tighter rules on retention, sharing, and enforcement use, and should avoid working with vendors they believe are not credible.
