Turn on the TV or scroll social media and you’re likely to encounter the chatter about Flock cameras. Get in your car and drive around, and you’re likely to encounter one in the wild. A community-maintained database currently maps 994 license plate reader locations in Connecticut, with approximately 66 percent identified as Flock cameras. Though the map is crowdsourced and Connecticut has not yet produced an official inventory of the number or location of cameras, we can comfortably say there are at least 650 Flock cameras around the state. Connecticut Public reported in August that approximately half of Connecticut’s local police departments use Flock products.
For the uninitiated, Flock Safety cameras are automatic license plate readers that photograph passing vehicles and record information including license plates, vehicle characteristics, time and location. The company, founded in 2020 and based in Atlanta with a nearly $8 Billion valuation, also sells video cameras and drones. The stated intention of these cameras is to help solve crimes, but their proliferation has truly struck a nerve.
At ImpactCT, our starting point is not reflexive opposition to technology. But we do take seriously whether people are receiving fair treatment and have a meaningful opportunity to shape decisions that affect their communities and personal lives. Connecticut residents should not learn that a surveillance network has been built around them only after the cameras are already in place because while the pole makes the technology visible, the underlying issue is the database and network behind it.
Like data centers, Flock cameras give an otherwise diffuse anxiety about technology a physical form. The decisions about where cameras are placed, whose movements receive additional scrutiny, which databases law enforcement officers search and which agencies can access the information may produce inequitable results even if the technology appears neutral.
For the record, Connecticut already has a statewide policy governing automated license plate readers. Under Governor Lamont, Public Act 26-14 establishes uniform rules for how public agencies collect, retain, search, share and report ALPR data, and most operational provisions take effect in just a few weeks October 1, 2026.
One big question is, should the state also regulate the decision to install cameras, their number and placement, the local approval process, and privately owned cameras that are not operating under a public-agency contract? The camera may stand on one town’s road, but the data it produces does not necessarily remain within that town.
Connecticut is well-known for its addiction to “home rule,” the concept being each of its 169 cities and towns should be free to make their own rules and regulations, as opposed to operating under state mandates. But of course there are many statewide laws that cities and towns have to adhere to. As part of the larger AI debate, it will be interesting to see if legislators and the Governor decide in the 2027 legislative session that, yes, flock cameras need to be regulated under a statewide policy, as opposed to a hodge-podge set of rules at the municipal level.
Misuse of flock cameras (and technology in the AI age more broadly) is not hypothetical. Police officers elsewhere have been accused of using license plate reader systems to stalk women or pursue personal interests, while broad data-sharing arrangements can allow searches by agencies far from the community where the information was collected, as The Connecticut Mirror reported. Thousands of individually ordinary observations can become a detailed account of someone’s movements, relationships and routines that pose a real threat in the hands of someone acting in bad faith.
Unsurprisingly, the discourse around Flock cameras has made its way into election campaigns here and across the country. In August, Governor Ned Lamont urged Connecticut municipalities to pause the installation of new public-safety cameras while the state developed additional guidance. Around the same time, Republican gubernatorial candidate Ryan Fazio released a campaign video calling Flock cameras and speed cameras “Orwellian.” Lamont has resisted calls for a complete ban, while Fazio has also said he supports restrictions rather than eliminating the technology altogether. As the Connecticut Insider reported, both candidates now appear to agree that some guardrails are needed, even if they disagree about what those restrictions should look like.
Flock cameras are an almost perfect political symbol for our growing unease about technology. They are visible, unfamiliar and connected to a much larger system operating outside public view. Unlike the algorithms, databases and data-sharing agreements behind them, the camera itself gives people something tangible to point to.
Connecticut still lacks a complete statewide inventory and a consistent public process for deciding when and where these systems should be installed. That may be a good place for elected leaders to start and then go on to develop a framework for transparency, retention, access, auditing and public approval. We should hold our leaders accountable to explain why the technology is needed, demonstrate that its use is proportionate and give the public meaningful control before adoption outruns consent.
Technology can be technically neutral while its placement and use produce inequitable effects.