Progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is adding her voice to a growing bipartisan backlash against Flock, as the company’s surveillance cameras emerge as a flashpoint in the midterm election debate.
Republicans, meanwhile, remain divided over the spread of license plate-reading cameras produced by the company, whose technology has rapidly expanded across the United States and fueled concerns about civil liberties, privacy rights and Big Brother-style monitoring.
A number of liberals, including Ocasio-Cortez, have also sharply criticized the cameras, with the New York Democrat taking aim at the technology during an interview Wednesday.
‘Oh man, Flock Cameras are terrible. These things are awful,’ the Congresswoman told MeidasTouch.
She said Americans do not want to live in a “surveillance state” or be “hooked up to AI companies” that are “vacuuming our data.”
“I don’t even know how they are legal half of the time, the ways that they are going up, the way that they are doing these conferences with these sweetheart contracts with local police departments in a way that’s not vetted or transparent,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
Ocasio-Cortez, who is widely viewed by some political observers as a possible 2028 presidential contender, argued that Flock cameras cut against a basic understanding of American freedom.
“When we talk about what living in a free country means, I think the ability to move freely without looking over your shoulder to see if some private company is spying on you is a foundational element of that,” she said.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is joining lawmakers from both parties in criticizing Flock, as surveillance cameras become a prominent midterm election issue
Republicans are split over license plate-reading cameras made by a single company that has blanketed the United States, raising fears of civil liberties breaches and Big Brother-style surveillance
Flock Safety’s once-local policing tool has grown into a vast, searchable network, with 120,000 cameras across 49 states that automatically track the license plates on passing vehicles.
Reports of alleged misuse, fears over abortion and immigration tracking and the prospect of federal access have turned an obscure local issue into a national battle.
Ocasio-Cortez is one of many politicians and those running for office in the midterms who have gone after the cameras.
Across the country and up and down ballots, candidates from both parties are increasingly on the attack over Flock cameras.
James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, recently declared, ‘Flock cameras have no place in Texas.’
His Republican opponent Ken Paxton’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Pennsylvania governor seeking reelection and considered a potential contender for the White House in 2028, said this week he would support a statewide ban.
His Republican opponent, Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity, said in a statement, ‘Flock cameras are an intrusive invasion of privacy and they should be banned.’
A vandalized Flock Safety system covered in paint in Houston by angry protestors
An unhappy resident in Troy, New York protests Flock cameras at a City Hall meeting
In Wisconsin, the issue dominated the governor’s race this week.
Democratic nominee David Crowley, who is taking hits over his past comments in support of making Wisconsin a global AI and data hub, highlighted that he had issued an order limiting the use of Flock cameras in Milwaukee County, where he serves as county executive.
He said that as governor he would ‘implement strict transparency and accountability laws that ensure Wisconsinites are not spied on.’
His Republican opponent, Congressman Tom Tiffany, said in a statement that he would pause state funding for Flock cameras and create a task force to establish stronger privacy protections, penalties for misuse, limits on data retention and sharing and ‘safeguards against Communist China and foreign adversaries.’
In Michigan, self-described democratic socialist William Lawrence, a Democratic nominee for the House, recently addressed the cameras by calling them ‘the most un-American thing I can imagine.’
A spokesman for his opponent, incumbent Rep. Tom Barrett, noted that Barrett is a co-sponsor of legislation intended to ban federal agencies from using Flock cameras or other surveillance technology and to prevent state and local governments from using federal funds to buy them.
In Florida, where outgoing Republican Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration this week ordered the removal of automated license plate readers from state highway rights-of-way, Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon’s campaign is selling a T-shirt that reads, ‘FLORIDA NEEDS TO GET THE FLOCK OUT.’
While calls for bans or restrictions have mounted, other candidates have expressed more supportive or nuanced views, and policing groups have reiterated their strong backing for the company and its tech.
James Talarico (pictured), the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, recently declared, ‘Flock cameras have no place in Texas’
Republican Rep. Tom Barrett (pictured) is a co-sponsor of legislation intended to ban federal agencies from using Flock cameras or other surveillance technology and to prevent state and local governments from using federal funds to buy them
President Donald Trump said recently at an Oval Office event that his administration was studying the issue and would have more to say soon.
Last week, Our News Outlet reported a debate has been sparked in the West Wing about the federal use of the surveillance technology that has left some Republicans squeamish.
‘Flock has been something we’ve been chatting about,’ a former CIA official told Our News Outlet. ‘I think it’s creepy and has the vulnerability of being hacked by the Chinese or some other adversary. It’s Big Brother. Don’t care who’s running the government, it’s too tempting to weaponize.’
What separates Flock from other systems is its advanced camera optics, the former agent said. The cameras are not simply license plate readers but can identify people by their face or even the way that they walk.
‘Right now, it’s mostly plate reader stuff, but the hardware has the ability to do facial and gait recognition. Supplement that with AI, and you can do a world of ubiquitous technical surveillance.’
The federal, state and municipal use of the surveillance technology comes with trade-offs, the source added: ‘Security for privacy.’
While the president and his administration study the matter, multiple Republican lawmakers and scores of Democrats have come out against the systems.
But the ongoing discussion in the White House revolves around whether they should be more widely adopted by the federal government, particularly in law enforcement capacities.
President Donald Trump said recently at an Oval Office event that his administration was studying the issue and would have more to say soon
Opponents to the security systems have taken to marking their locations with notices or holding up signs to block the views of the cameras
Stephen Miller, the president’s top policy adviser, declined to comment on whether he wants access to Flock for federal immigration officials, but he did blame the current ‘public attitudes and views’ on Flock on the left.
‘You have parts of this country run by the left, where they make the good guys into the bad guy and the bad guys into the good guy,’ he told Our News Outlet. ‘And the key to the Trump administration’s policy is we protect the good guys and we punish the bad guys.’
‘We don’t have a contract with them,’ a Department of Homeland Security official told Our News Outlet in a statement. The source did not say whether or not the department is seeking a future contract.
Two United States Secret Service sources say the White House does not use Flock, but that they have their own advanced capabilities using an array of cameras and sensors.
Flock Safety was founded in 2017 by three Georgia Tech graduates in Atlanta. The company now makes $300 million per year.
Its cameras include AI-powered automatic license plate readers that document passing vehicles, their license plates, along with their makes, models, colors and distinguishing features, such as dents, stickers or other damage.
These identifiable details are then uploaded to a database that police can search. That data is often used to help authorities identify stolen vehicles, track missing persons and generate investigative leads.
Opponents of the systems claim they pose risks of mass surveillance, police misuse leading to wrongful stops, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections. Proponents say they help municipalities crack down on crime.
Stephen Miller (pictured), the president’s top policy adviser, declined to comment on whether he wants access to Flock for federal immigration officials, but he did blame the current ‘public attitudes and views’ on Flock on the left
Protesters rally against the use of Flock cameras
Join the discussion
Are surveillance cameras like Flock making America safer or threatening our freedom and privacy?
The company has partnered with the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) in the past.
It also works with Veterans Affairs hospitals and US military bases, according to the Flock website.
A Flock Safety spokesman stressed how the company has been used to help law enforcement and its cloud systems have ‘never been hacked.’
‘Flock does not use facial recognition and we do not have facial recognition technology in development. The suggestion that our LPR hardware is being designed to enable facial or gait recognition is incorrect.’
