Stoughton ends agreement with Flock Safety

Our Take

Credit to WMTV for the local reporting here: Stoughton's City Council didn't just question its Flock Safety contract, it killed it, and did so unanimously. That kind of consensus is rare on surveillance issues and suggests the pushback wasn't partisan noise but a shared discomfort with what these camera networks actually do once they're installed.

We don't have the full record of what drove the vote, but the pattern is familiar: a city signs up for "public safety" cameras, then later reckons with the data-sharing, vendor lock-in, and mission creep that come standard with ALPR deals. Flock's pitch is always framed around solving crimes; what gets glossed over is the permanent log of every driver's movements that sits in a database accessible far beyond the original intent, often shared with other agencies with little local oversight.

Stoughton just showed that an agreement isn't permanent — it can be reversed when residents and officials decide the tradeoff isn't worth it. If you want to see whether your own town is running these systems, check our camera map, and if you'd rather not wait for a scandal to force the issue, our take-action page has steps for pushing your council toward the exit Stoughton just took.