Flock cameras are disappearing in Colorado, but police surveillance isn't
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios
Flock has become the boogeyman of police surveillance, with Colorado communities increasingly ditching its license plate-reading cameras over privacy concerns.
Why it matters: Some are swapping Flock for competing technology, preserving the capabilities that sparked the backlash in the first place.
State of play: As the Nov. 3 election approaches, candidates are being pressed to take a stand on the future of police surveillance.
The big picture: At least a dozen Colorado cities and counties have dropped Flock or moved to replace it this year, including Arvada, Denver, Douglas County, El Paso County, Englewood and Lafayette.
- Some abandoned the readers altogether. Others, such as Denver and Durango, turned to competitors like Axon.
- It's a sharp reversal for a company that was embraced during Colorado's auto theft surge in the early 2020s, before concerns about federal immigration access and data misuse fueled public outcry.
Between the lines: Flock may be the face of the blowback, but it's far from the only company tracking drivers.
- Rivals, such as Axon, Motorola Solutions and Rekor, also offer technology that logs passing vehicles' plates, timestamps and location.
- Police use that data to investigate crimes — but it can also map movements of those never suspected of wrongdoing.
Zoom in: An Axios analysis of more than a dozen Denver-area law enforcement agencies revealed wide disparities in how they handle surveillance data — even when using the same technology.
- Denver's new Axon system still collects license plate data, but the city cut retention from 30 to 21 days and limited database access to local public safety personnel.
- Unlike Flock, which allows police to share license plate data through a nationwide network, Axon limits sharing to individual agreements between departments.
Yes, but: Key privacy protections still depend on the rules individual agencies adopt.
What they're saying: "If we're only concerned about Flock … we're missing the issue," Keith Guzik, a CU Denver sociologist who studies police surveillance, told Axios.
- The bigger concern, he said, is whether departments have adequate safeguards, regardless of which company's cameras they use.
The other side: Flock told Axios it doesn't use facial recognition or sell data, and departments can block immigration-related searches by outside agencies.
- The company said every search is auditable, and it's introducing tools to flag suspicious activity.
- Axon didn't respond to multiple requests for comment.
The bottom line: Changing who's behind the cameras is one thing. Changing the rules about what police collect, keep and share is another.
- Real reform, Guzik says, requires shorter retention, tighter access, regular audits and independent oversight.