Through an analysis of 10 months of nationwide searches on Flock Safety's servers, we discovered that more than 50 federal, state, and local agencies ran hundreds of searches through Flock's national…
It's no secret that 2025 has given Americans plenty to protest about. But as news cameras showed protesters filling streets of cities across the country, law enforcement officers—including U.S. Border Patrol agents—were quietly watching those same streets through different lenses: Flock Safety automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that tracked every passing car.
Through an analysis of 10 months of nationwide searches on Flock Safety's servers, we discovered that more than 50 federal, state, and local agencies ran hundreds of searches through Flock's national network of surveillance data in connection with protest activity. In some cases, law enforcement specifically targeted known activist groups, demonstrating how mass surveillance technology increasingly threatens our freedom to demonstrate.
Flock Safety provides ALPR technology to thousands of law enforcement agencies. The company installs cameras throughout their jurisdictions, and these cameras photograph every car that passes, documenting the license plate, color, make, model and other distinguishing characteristics. This data is paired with time and location, and uploaded to a massive searchable database. Flock Safety encourages agencies to share the data they collect broadly with other agencies across the country. It is common for an agency to search thousands of networks nationwide even when they don't have reason to believe a targeted vehicle left the region.
Via public records requests, EFF obtained datasets representing more than 12 million searches logged by more than 3,900 agencies between December 2024 and October 2025. The data shows that agencies logged hundreds of searches related to the 50501 protests in February, the Hands Off protests in April, the No Kings protests in June and October, and other protests in between.
The Tulsa Police Department in Oklahoma was one of the most consistent users of Flock Safety's ALPR system for investigating protests, logging at least 38 such searches. This included running searches that corresponded to a protest against deportation raids in February, a protest at Tulsa City Hall in support of pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil in March, and the No Kings protest in June. During the most recent No Kings protests in mid-October, agencies such as the Lisle Police Department in Illinois, the Oro Valley Police Department in Arizona, and the Putnam County (Tenn.) Sheriff's Office all ran protest-related searches.
While EFF and other civil liberties groups argue the law should require a search warrant for such searches, police are simply prompted to enter text into a "reason" field in the Flock Safety system. Usually this is only a few words–or even just one.
In these cases, that word was often just “protest.”
Crime does sometimes occur at protests, whether that's property damage, pick-pocketing, or clashes between groups on opposite sides of a protest. Some of these searches may have been tied to an actual crime that occurred, even though in most cases officers did not articulate a criminal offense when running the search. But the truth is, the only reason an officer is able to even search for a suspect at a protest is because ALPRs collected data on every single person who attended the protest.
Search and Dissent
2025 was an unprecedented year of street action. In June and again in October, thousands across the country mobilized under the banner of the “No Kings” movement—marches against government overreach, surveillance, and corporate power. By some estimates, the October demonstrations ranked among the largest single-day protests in U.S. history, filling the streets from Washington, D.C., to Portland, OR.
EFF identified 19 agencies that logged dozens of searches associated with the No Kings protests in June and October 2025. In some cases the "No Kings" was explicitly used, while in others the term "protest" was used but coincided with the massive protests.
|
Law Enforcement Agencies that Ran Searches Corresponding with "No Kings" Rallies
|
For example:
- In Washington state, the Spokane County Sheriff's Office listed "no kings" as the reason for three searches on June 13, 2025. The agency queried 95 camera networks, looking for vehicles matching the description of "work van," "bus" or "box truck."
- In Texas, the Beaumont Police Department ran six searches related to two vehicles on June 14, 2025, listing "KINGS DAY PROTEST" as the reason. The queries reached across 1,774 networks.
- In California, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office ran a single search for a vehicle across 711 networks, logging "no king" as the reason.
- In Arizona, the Tempe Police Department made three searches for "ATL No Kings Protest" on June 15, 2025 searching through 425 networks. "ATL" is police code for "attempt to locate." The agency appears to not have been looking for a particular plate, but for any red vehicle on the road during a certain time window.
But the No Kings protests weren't the only demonstrations drawing law enforcement's digital dragnet in 2025.
For example:
- In Nevada's state capital, the Carson City Sheriff's Office ran three searches that correspond to the February 50501 Protests against DOGE and the Trump administration. The agency searched for two vehicles across 178 networks with "protest" as the reason.
- In Florida, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office logged "protest" for five searches that correspond to a local May Day rally.
- In Alabama, the Homewood Police Department logged four searches in early July 2025 for three vehicles with "PROTEST CASE" and "PROTEST INV." in the reason field. The searches, which probed 1,308 networks, correspond to protests against the police shooting of Jabari Peoples.
- In Texas, the Lubbock Police Department ran two searches for a Tennessee license plate on March 15 that corresponds to a rally to highlight the mental health impact of immigration policies. The searches hit 5,966 networks, with the logged reason "protest veh."
- In Michigan, Grand Rapids Police Department ran five searches that corresponded with the Stand Up and Fight Back Rally in February. The searches hit roughly 650 networks, with the reason logged as "Protest."
Some agencies have adopted policies that prohibit using ALPRs for monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment. Yet many officers probed the nationwide network with terms like "protest" without articulating an actual crime under investigation.
In a few cases, police were using Flock’s ALPR network to investigate threats made against attendees or incidents where motorists opposed to the protests drove their vehicle into crowds. For example, throughout June 2025, an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer logged three searches for “no kings rock threat,” and a Wichita (Kan.) Police Department officer logged 22 searches for various license plates under the reason “Crime Stoppers Tip of causing harm during protests.”
Even when law enforcement is specifically looking for vehicles engaged in potentially criminal behavior such as threatening protesters, it cannot be ignored that mass surveillance systems work by collecting data on everyone driving to or near a protest—not just those under suspicion.
Border Patrol's Expanding Reach
As U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), ICE, and other federal agencies tasked with immigration enforcement have massively expanded operations into major cities, advocates for immigrants have responded through organized rallies, rapid-response confrontations, and extended presences at federal facilities.
USBP has made extensive use of Flock Safety's system for immigration enforcement, but also to target those who object to its tactics. In June, a few days after the No Kings Protest, USBP ran three searches for a vehicle using the descriptor “Portland Riots.”
USBP has made extensive use of Flock Safety's system for immigration enforcement, but also to target those who object to its tactics.
USBP also used the Flock Safety network to investigate a motorist who had “extended his middle finger” at Border Patrol vehicles that were transporting detainees. The motorist then allegedly drove in front of one of the vehicles and slowed down, forcing the Border Patrol vehicle to brake hard. An officer ran seven searches for his plate, citing "assault on agent" and "18 usc 111," the federal criminal statute for assaulting, resisting or impeding a federal officer. The individual was charged in federal court in early August.
USBP had access to the Flock system during a trial period in the first half of 2025, but the company says it has since paused the agency's access to the system. However, Border Patrol and other federal immigration authorities have been able to access the system’s data through local agencies who have run searches on their behalf or even lent them logins.
Targeting Animal Rights Activists
Law enforcement's use of Flock's ALPR network to surveil protesters isn't limited to large-scale political demonstrations. Three agencies also used the system dozens of times to specifically target activists from Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), an animal-rights organization known for using civil disobedience tactics to expose conditions at factory farms.
Delaware State Police queried the Flock national network nine times in March 2025 related to DxE actions, logging reasons such as "DxE Protest Suspect Vehicle." DxE advocates told EFF that these searches correspond to an investigation the organization undertook of a Mountaire Farms facility.
Additionally, the California Highway Patrol logged dozens of searches related to a "DXE Operation" throughout the day on May 27, 2025. The organization says this corresponds with an annual convening in California that typically ends in a direct action. Participants leave the event early in the morning, then drive across the state to a predetermined but previously undisclosed protest site. Also in May, the Merced County Sheriff's Office in California logged two searches related to "DXE activity."
As an organization engaged in direct activism, DxE has experienced criminal prosecution for its activities, and so the organization told EFF they were not surprised to learn they are under scrutiny from law enforcement, particularly considering how industrial farmers have collected and distributed their own intelligence to police.
The targeting of DxE activists reveals how ALPR surveillance extends beyond conventional and large-scale political protests to target groups engaged in activism that challenges powerful industries. For animal-rights activists, the knowledge that their vehicles are being tracked through a national surveillance network undeniably creates a chilling effect on their ability to organize and demonstrate.
Fighting Back Against ALPR
ALPR systems are designed to capture information on every vehicle that passes within view. That means they don't just capture data on "criminals" but on everyone, all the time—and that includes people engaged in their First Amendment right to publicly dissent. Police are sitting on massive troves of data that can reveal who attended a protest, and this data shows they are not afraid to use it.
Our analysis only includes data where agencies explicitly mentioned protests or related terms in the "reason" field when documenting their search. It's likely that scores more were conducted under less obvious pretexts and search reasons. According to our analysis, approximately 20 percent of all searches we reviewed listed vague language like "investigation," "suspect," and "query" in the reason field. Those terms could well be cover for spying on a protest, an abortion prosecution, or an officer stalking a spouse, and no one would be the wiser–including the agencies whose data was searched. Flock has said it will now require officers to select a specific crime under investigation, but that can and will also be used to obfuscate dubious searches.
For protestors, this data should serve as confirmation that ALPR surveillance has been and will be used to target activities protected by the First Amendment. Depending on your threat model, this means you should think carefully about how you arrive at protests, and explore options such as by biking, walking, carpooling, taking public transportation, or simply parking a little further away from the action. Our Surveillance Self-Defense project has more information on steps you could take to protect your privacy when traveling to and attending a protest.
For local officials, this should serve as another example of how systems marketed as protecting your community may actually threaten the values your communities hold most dear. The best way to protect people is to shut down these camera networks.
Everyone should have the right to speak up against injustice without ending up in a database.
Read the original article
Comments
I recently contributed to https://deflock.me/
We had a local story where the gist was the police said they searched ALPR for the welfare of a young woman, but it was actually more focused on a possible abortion. [1] "Unrelated" this same Sheriff was later charged with sexual harassment, perjury, and retaliation against a witness [2]. These are the types that are able to easily track you if they wanted to.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...
[2] https://www.fox4news.com/news/johnson-county-sheriff-arreste...
In exploring my state (Oregon), I'm seeing an interesting pattern to where they are frequently located. Specifically, at home improvement store parking lots.
And in most cases, the ones at home improvement stores are the only ones in the city. Salem (the state capital) only has them at Lowes. Eugene is an exception with many cameras (including Home Depot and Lowe's).
I'd be interested in when these cameras were placed. If recent, I'd wonder about an ICE/immigration response.
Just zooming around the map, here's a handful of citys I've seen...
Lowe's: Albany, Salem, McMinville, Vancouver WA, Fairview, Eugene, Bend, Redmond, Medford
Home Depot: Sherwood, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Cedar Mill (Beaverton), Tigard, Vancouver WA, Portland (multiple), Gresham, Oregon City
* Edit * Ah here's an article about this: https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from...
By pugworthy 2025-11-2119:57 Montana is an interesting state. Very few cameras state wide (20), and all but 3 are at Lowe's and Home Depot.
By SoftTalker 2025-11-2119:551 reply Because those places have a huge problem with shoplifting. At least that's the story they tell.
I imagine there's some truth to that. But if I was someone wanting to setup some ICE action, I'd probably be drooling at the thought of accessing that data being a central gathering points for day laborers looking for work.
https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/home-depot-immigration-i...
By wakawaka28 2025-11-2121:021 reply As I understand it, these stores are very likely to be gathering points anyway. You don't need surveillance to tell you that. Someone could walk in posing as a contractor and ask where to find cheap workers too.
By wakawaka28 2025-11-2121:001 reply Home improvement stores have a LOT of theft, especially in some cities. People try to walk out with power tools and expensive gear all the time.
Maybe? It would have to be a pretty big theft to go to all the trouble of finding the vehicle on camera, identifying the owner, figuring out if the thief was the owner, etc.
They aren’t going to do all that if it’s a relatively small value theft. And the big value stuff is usually locked down.
And if it’s for their own protection why be part of a bigger network shared with law enforcement for whatever they (LEO) wants?
By wakawaka28 2025-11-2122:061 reply There is no maybe about it. These thefts are well-known and spur the defensive measures you're talking about. It goes beyond just locking things up. There are AI systems tracking your movement through the store, and they can even immobilize your shopping cart on the way out if they think you didn't pay. Some tools also have RFID based activation schemes, without which they can't be used.
It is the job of the police to investigate thefts. Therefore it kind of makes sense why they might want to put up cameras in high crime areas. We just don't want the cameras to be abused. I don't want to be tracked and have the contents of my house itemized by systems like this. Is there a less intrusive way to prevent crime, perhaps by posting a security guard? I think so. But what does it cost, and would you rather pay for that or deal with the camera?
By wakawaka28 2025-11-2216:19 The stuff on their shelves is less valuable. They also get more traffic and seem to have more security cameras and staff. Target has had a lot of thefts. If I'm not mistaken, Target had an AI system to track faces of shoplifters and the accumulated value of the stuff that was stolen. Costco won't generally let you in if you don't have a membership, and there are people at the entrances and exits at all times.
Have you not seen the stores like Walgreens that have very basic toiletries behind glass? This stuff is very location dependent and some cities (most?) are still normal. Many stores including Target and Walmart are using AI to track shoplifters. They have had to resort to adding up thefts over time until it totals over $1000 or something, because theft is so pervasive. That's not the kind of theft you need outside cameras for, but these stores see it all.
The thing about this Texas abortion Flock story is: whether or not your muni keeps Flock, absolutely no municipality should have out-of-state data sharing on (arguably, none of them should have any data sharing on at all --- operationally, departments do just fine making phone calls and getting the data they need).
This is totally configurable inside Flock. It's very easy for a police department to do. Sometimes they'll argue that they need to keep sharing open because sharing is reciprocal --- that's not true (in fact, you don't even need to have Flock cameras to get access to Flock data; that's a SKU Flock has!).
We piloted Flock with open sharing (my commission got consultation for the police General Order for ALPRs in our municipality, we pushed for no sharing alongside a bunch of other restrictions, we got most of what we wanted but not the sharing stuff). When the pilot ended and the board needed a go-no-go on deployment, another push got made on sharing and we got out-of-state sharing disabled as a condition of deployment. Then at contract renewal, when the writing was on the wall that we were killing the contract†, our police department turned off all sharing.
Even if you're not worried about stuff like reproductive health care (you should be), it doesn't make sense to allow departments that don't share your General Orders direct access to your telemetry.
† I wasn't a supporter on this for complicated reasons.
> arguably, none of them should
Indisputably, once someone has a hammer, especially one that grants them this much extra power, they will go looking for nails. In 2025 those who still defend those "hammers" with the wide-eyed impression that they can somehow control them once they're out there are at best showing hubris, lack of foresight, and disregard for the history books.
To be more clear, when you push for "less sharing" and somehow get it, you aren't actually getting what you want, you're just getting less of what you didn't want. It's like when the waiter asks you how much spit you want in your soup, the correct answer is to kick the waiter out not to demand a minimal amount.
By tptacek 2025-11-2120:17 This kind of reasoning is super useful if you live in a community that has a commanding majority of voters who read HN.
Checked out the map, there is one near me on a parking lot with this OSM data
> camera:type fixed
> direction 340
> man_made surveillance
> surveillance:type ALPR
Which results in "Operated by: Unknown, Made by: Unknown". What am I supposed to do with that info I wonder. How would I find out if it's actually Flock or if law enforcement would actually have access to this particular camera.
In my case the city had to publish their agreement with Flock and I was able to find the city council presentation showing exactly where they put the cameras, and many selling points of how great Flock is. In fact, someone else in my town had already marked them.
Obviously, this website does nothing for us, just glance up at any egress or ingress to where you live (in the US) and note you've been tracked. Or feel free to update the node with better information if you have it.
By tptacek 2025-11-2119:28 Some cities just publish these locations, and in many (most?) jurisdictions you can just FOIA the camera placements.
By aiiotnoodle 2025-11-2118:26 This is because the metadata in OSM doesn't include the tags that Deflock looks for:
You can see the requirements here https://deflock.me/report/id but the two you're looking for are.
manufacturer operator
I think they should add Siemens Sicore cameras to their known camera database, but they do show up on Deflock despite not being mentioned explicitly on the website. Here is an example in one of my contributions via OSM. https://deflock.me/map#map=18/53.786783/-1.551438
By fencepost 2025-11-2120:12 One thing you could do is go and physically look at the camera. https://deflock.me/identify has pictures of cameras from at least the major providers.
There are probably a lot more cameras than are listed in the database.
You could point a camera down the street you live on and record the license plate of every car that passes and video of every pedestrian for a few hundred dollars.
I thought about doing this a couple of years ago when there were a few instances of theft going on. To get into or out of my neighborhood, you have to drive by my home and I wondered if I could capture the license plate of the thieves.
By tsbischof 2025-11-2211:48 Yup, about 100k installed vs about 40k mapped
By nonethewiser 2025-11-2118:263 reply >We had a local story where the gist was the police said they searched ALPR for the welfare of a young woman, but it was actually more focused on a possible abortion.
Just to be clear, most abortions in Texas are illegal. That's not necessarily a good thing. Nor are flock cameras necessarily a good thing. But given abortions are illegal in Texas, it's simply being used for its nominal purpose.
So it doesnt seems like a particularly egregious use of flock. It's just as egregious as it normally is, which is pretty egregious.
By deathanatos 2025-11-2118:55 > Just to be clear, most abortions in Texas are illegal. That's not necessarily a good thing. Nor are flock cameras necessarily a good thing. But given abortions are illegal in Texas, it's simply being used for its nominal purpose.
(IANAL.) In the specific case cited by the parent poster, AFAICT looking at the facts of the case, no Texas law was violated, nor do the authorities involved ever allege that any law was violated.
Nonetheless, the authorities involved in this case violated her privacy, including use of ALPR cameras in other states. The reasoning given is disputed, and seems to be a motte/bailey between "it was a missing person report" (with specious reasoning as to her being "missing") and "investigation of an abortion" that the State themselves admits they "could not statutorily charge [her]" for.
By nyc_data_geek1 2025-11-2118:301 reply The law can be utterly egregious and an affront to morality. Legal behavior can thus be an utterly egregious affront to human decency. See: Apartheid
There is no handwaving away the moral implications of these technologies, and who they empower to do what to whom.
By nonethewiser 2025-11-2118:345 reply Im saying its a normal, predictable use of flock. Not that it's OK. Many readers might not know that abortions for the most part aren't legal in Texas. You should expect flock to assist law enforcement in catching people doing something illegal.
By SoftTalker 2025-11-2120:001 reply They don't catch people doing something illegal. They might record someone's car being near some place where maybe something illegal happened. That's not the standard of "reasonable doubt" required for a criminal conviction, and at best is (weak) circumstantial evidence.
By tptacek 2025-11-2120:18 There is no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence in US criminal law.
These specific abortion laws and systems of surveillance are new and unprecedented, as is the use of them together. So we should very much like to be aware of when they are being used.
By nonethewiser 2025-11-2119:021 reply Knowing abortions are illegal and flock cameras exist is sufficient information to know they are being used for such a purpose.
By nickthegreek 2025-11-2120:15 The amount of people you know who understand Flock can be counted with your right hand, and most likely can be counted without. This is not common knowledge.
By FireBeyond 2025-11-2118:44 See sibling comment. It's not at all shown that the person did something illegal, in fact they did something quite legal, have an abortion in Washington state in a manner that was within the parameters of Washington's abortion laws.
By fzeroracer 2025-11-2122:16 Just to be clear you believe it is normal and predictable for law enforcement officers in one state to follow your movements in another state to see if you violated state law in a state where it does not apply? That kind of normal?
By FireBeyond 2025-11-2118:42 > But given abortions are illegal in Texas, it's simply being used for its nominal purpose.
No, it's not.
The person in question was in Washington state at the time. Abortions are not blanket illegal in Washington. You cannot be prosecuted in Texas for breaking a Texas law for something you did in Washington (though some states are already in the process of trying to close that loophole, and have created the crime of "conspiracy to commit abortion").
It's also quite likely that accessing these Washington Flock records violated Washington law.
By walterbell 2025-11-2117:58 Local strategies, "The Cameras Tracking You Are a Security Nightmare" (90 comments), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45945960#45947911
"Find Nearby Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)" (70 comments), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45487452
Adversarial computer vision and DIY OSS $250 RPi Hailo ALPR (2M views), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ
"Tire Pressure Sensor IDs: Why, Where and When (2015)" (30 comments), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45490202
Hm, the State thoroughly coopting private enterprises to oppress their people… I wonder what’s the name of that…
These are generally not private cameras; they're operated by states and municipalities. There are some corner cases like Home Depot that matter if your area has decided not to do ALPRs, but in most places, police department deployment of ALPRs is accelerating, not receding, and the private cameras are kind of a sideshow.
By nickthegreek 2025-11-2120:17 While I agree with your overall statement, I want to note that OP said private enterprise, not private cameras. Flock is doing more than distributing hardware here.
By astroflection 2025-11-2120:59 I don't know of a name for this but I would rephrase what you are getting at:
The state uses private entities to get around the constitution while those same private entities use the state to get around regulation.
It's a sick fucking symbiosis.
By potsandpans 2025-11-2118:221 reply We can't say it though, at risk of being publicly derided as being histrionic.
By mindslight 2025-11-2122:09 As a libertarian, I'll stop calling them fascists when they stop calling themselves conservatives and actually adopt some kind of honest label for what they stand for. But that would require them to stand for something constructive rather than simping for whatever destructive looting Dear Leader has divined this week.
