A private company’s push to expand its nationwide surveillance network has drawn fresh scrutiny as cities and privacy advocates push back against its rapid deployment of automatic license plate readers. Flock Safety, a Georgia-based technology firm, spent $102,000 lobbying in 2025 to advance state legislation supporting its cameras, according to OpenSecrets data. The company, which operates over 120,000 cameras across 49 states, has faced growing resistance from municipalities seeking stricter oversight or outright bans.
DeFlock, a grassroots mapping project launched by software engineer Will Freeman, has become a focal point for critics. Freeman created the platform after noticing Flock Safety’s cameras in multiple states, including his hometown of Huntsville, Alabama. His project allows users to track the locations of these devices, which capture license plates and vehicle details from every passing car. Freeman told the Washington Examiner that the cameras appeared deliberately concealed, often mounted behind signs or in hard-to-see locations, sparking concerns about privacy.
Flock Safety’s technology has been adopted by thousands of law enforcement agencies, with the company positioning its cameras as tools to combat crime, from homicides to car theft. However, critics argue the system enables mass surveillance without public consent. In Wisconsin, Flock lobbied for two Republican-backed bills—Assembly Bill 300 and Senate Bill 299—which would have provided grants for local police to expand their use of license plate readers. Both measures failed to pass in 2025, reflecting broader pushback against the technology.
The company’s lobbying efforts are part of a broader push to standardize its surveillance network. Flock’s cameras operate by photographing every vehicle that passes, storing the data in a searchable database accessible to law enforcement. Police departments can use the system to track a vehicle’s movement patterns or search tens of thousands of cameras simultaneously for specific license plates. While law enforcement agencies defend the tool as a crime-fighting asset, civil liberties advocates warn it enables unchecked government monitoring.
In some communities, the backlash has led to policy changes. Several municipalities have canceled contracts with Flock Safety or imposed stricter auditing requirements on how the data is used. Others have passed ordinances requiring public notice or opt-out provisions for residents. The debate over Flock’s cameras has become a flashpoint in broader discussions about privacy, law enforcement technology, and the balance between security and civil liberties.
Flock Safety has not publicly detailed its lobbying expenditures beyond the OpenSecrets report, and the company did not respond to requests for comment. Freeman’s DeFlock project remains a crowdsourced effort to document the spread of the cameras, with users contributing locations from across the country. The initiative has drawn attention to the rapid expansion of Flock’s network, raising questions about transparency and accountability in the deployment of such technology.