Some Colorado cities have had second thoughts about surveillance cameras used by police. Here’s why
The short version: KUNC reports Colorado cities are reconsidering Flock ALPR contracts, proof that local pushback can actually roll back surveillance once officials see the tradeoffs.
Our Take
Credit to KUNC for digging into something that doesn't happen often enough in this space: a city actually pausing to ask whether a surveillance system is worth keeping. Most of the coverage around Flock Safety's automated license plate readers focuses on rollout and expansion. This story flips the script, looking at Colorado communities that adopted the cameras, lived with them for a while, and started having buyer's remorse.
That's the part that matters most here. Flock pitches these networks as a quiet, low-friction add to local policing, but once councils and residents start asking who sees the data, how long it's kept, and whether it's actually solving the crimes it was sold to solve, the calculus changes. A camera on every corner doesn't just catch the occasional stolen car, it builds a permanent record of where ordinary people drive, when, and how often, and that record is available to police without a warrant. Cities walking that back is a sign the sales pitch doesn't survive contact with scrutiny.
If you want to know whether your own town is running this network, check our camera map to see documented ALPR locations near you, and if you want to push your city council toward the same second thoughts Colorado is having, our take-action page has concrete steps for showing up to the next public meeting.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of KUNC, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.