Automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras are becoming increasingly common across Connecticut. More than 1,500 cameras operate across the state, with approximately 70% of police departments using the technology. These are commonly referred to as Flock cameras, because Flock Safety is the largest provider, although other companies also operate ALPR networks.
These cameras record vehicle license plates, makes, models, and identifying features. They are intended to support police investigations, but their widespread use raises serious concerns about privacy, mass surveillance, data security, and the potential for abuse. There have already been cases around the country of weaponization and abuse of the system, and of wrongful arrests based on Flock data.
The Connecticut Legislature has taken some steps to mitigate these concerns. A new Connecticut law, effective October 1, establishes safeguards for the use of ALPR data. Police departments must delete data within 21 days unless it is connected to an active investigation. Officers must also enter an active case number before searching the system, and departments are required to audit searches for compliance.
The new law also restricts who the data can be shared with. The data collected can be shared with other Connecticut agencies, as well as law enforcement in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, provided they make a formal request specifying what they are looking for, and agree not to use the data for cases involving immigration, reproductive care, or gender-affirming healthcare. Data sharing with any other state requires a judge-approved warrant.
These protections are important, but there are still reasons for concern. Flock operates with little transparency or oversight. Even with safeguards to limit abuse, data security is an issue. Connecticut departments have found nationwide data sharing enabled after turning it off, and nearby Boston cancelled its contract with Flock after finding that data sharing had been re-enabled without its knowledge. Flock also had a data breach of its own system that it failed to disclose until nearly a year after it occurred.
The law also leaves gaps. It applies only to public agencies, leaving private business cameras outside its scope. These cameras can continue transmitting data to the nationwide network.
For many residents, these concerns hit extraordinarily close to home. When asked about what led to his engagement in his community, UCPEA member Keller Glass shared:
“My main concern was just the unease I felt when I realized my street was basically bookended by these cameras. I had this realization that, more than my own privacy, my daughter’s privacy was at great risk. She’s only 8 and most of her movements to and from her home, for her whole life, have been logged by law enforcement. Privacy is kind of a squishy term in the US, and these systems are often being put in place to solve immediate problems, but I think when most people are presented with the proposal, ‘should people’s movements be logged by law enforcement for their entire lives?,’ the perverseness of these systems becomes clearer.
This is especially true now with the prevalence of police using these systems in unauthorized ways to harass women, and the attempts by out-of-state jurisdictions to impose their reproductive health access laws into CT.
I should add that I am worried that the focus on Flock, specifically, is missing the larger point. A few lawmakers I’ve spoken with about this have said a version of, ‘I’m not against surveillance per se, but Flock is bad.’ To me this is side-stepping the underlying issue; does constant warrantless surveillance and logging of people’s movements by the government meet our definition of a free society? I don’t think it does, and I have a problem with people in government that think it does.”
Voices like Glass’s are fueling a growing pushback across the state. Several Connecticut communities are already taking action: Windsor, Killingworth, Ledyard, Milford, Newtown, and South Windsor have suspended or ended their use of ALPR cameras, while other municipalities are reviewing their systems.
We encourage members to learn more about the surveillance practices in their towns, ask local officials how ALPR data is collected and shared, and advocate for meaningful transparency and accountability. The ACLU has created a “Get the Flock Out” toolkit that provides resources to determine whether Flock and other ALPR companies operate in your town, and tools for residents seeking to end or limit Flock contracts.