23 Communities Said No to Surveillance

Something Changed in 2025

For years, Flock Safety sold license plate readers to police departments across America with minimal pushback. Departments signed contracts. Cameras went up. Data flowed to law enforcement databases. Communities found out later, if at all.

Then 2025 happened.

Since February, at least 23 jurisdictions have ended, cancelled, or rejected Flock Safety programs ^[1]. Not because of budget cuts. Not because the technology failed. Because communities organized and demanded their cities say no.

The surveillance lobby isn't used to losing. They're losing now.

Austin: 30 Groups vs. Flock Safety

Austin, Texas became the first major city to cancel a Flock contract after community pressure in 2025.

How it happened:

• Over 30 community organizations formed a coalition
• Groups ranged from civil liberties advocates to neighborhood associations
• They used purchasing power as a tool, not just policy advocacy
• The city terminated the contract

The EFF called this "procurement power", treating surveillance contracts like any other city purchase that citizens can influence ^[2]. Austin showed it works.

Cambridge: Trust Broken, Contract Terminated

Cambridge, Massachusetts didn't just end their Flock program. They kicked the company out for cause.

October 2025: The city council voted unanimously to pause Flock cameras.

December 2025: They terminated the contract entirely after discovering Flock had installed two cameras "without the city's awareness" ^[3].

Cambridge officials called it a "material breach of our trust."

When your surveillance vendor can't be trusted to follow basic agreements about where they put their cameras, that says something about how they'll handle the data those cameras collect.

Eugene & Springfield: Months of Pressure Paid Off

In December 2025, both Eugene and Springfield, Oregon ended their Flock camera programs.

This wasn't sudden. A group called Eyes Off Eugene spent months organizing residents, attending city council meetings, and building public awareness about what the cameras actually do.

Kamryn Stringfield, Eyes Off Eugene organizer: "This only happened due to the organized campaign led by Eyes Off Eugene" ^[4].

The lesson: sustained pressure works. Surveillance contracts often renew automatically unless someone objects. Eyes Off Eugene made sure someone objected, loudly, repeatedly, and with community backing.

Talent, Oregon: Immigration Concerns Stop Cameras

On December 26, 2025, Talent, Oregon paused their Flock cameras over a specific fear: the data could be used for immigration enforcement ^[5].

This isn't theoretical. License plate reader data flows into databases accessible by federal agencies. ICE has used ALPR data to track immigrants. With the Trump administration ramping up deportation operations, communities are realizing that "crime fighting" cameras can become immigration enforcement tools overnight.

Talent's city council decided they'd rather not find out how their cameras might be used.

Hays County: "It's About the Company"

Hays County, Texas terminated their Flock contract in October 2025. Commissioner Michelle Cohen explained why:

"It's more about the company's practices versus the technology" ^[6].

This distinction matters. Some communities aren't opposed to license plate readers in principle. They're opposed to Flock Safety specifically, to how the company operates, who they share data with, and whether they can be trusted.

That's a vulnerability the surveillance industry created for itself. When you build a reputation for opaque practices and mission creep, communities start asking questions you'd rather they didn't.

The Full List

Here's what happened in 2025:

Plus at least 11 more jurisdictions that cancelled, rejected, or let contracts lapse.

Evanston: The Illinois Audit That Changed Everything

Evanston, Illinois terminated 19 Flock cameras after the Illinois Secretary of State's office revealed something damning: the cameras were sharing data with federal immigration enforcement ^[7].

This wasn't what residents were told the cameras would do. They were sold as crime-fighting tools. Instead, the data was flowing to agencies that could use it to track immigrants.

When surveillance systems get used for purposes beyond what communities approved, trust evaporates. Evanston decided they'd rather have no cameras than cameras doing things they never agreed to.

Olympia: 200 People Showed Up

On December 2, 2025, nearly 200 community members attended a counter-information rally in Olympia, Washington about Flock cameras ^[8].

The next day, the cameras were covered pending removal.

That's what organized communities look like. Not a few emails to city council. Not an online petition. Two hundred people showing up in person to say: not in our city.

Why This Is Happening Now

Several factors are converging:

Immigration enforcement fears: With ICE ramping up operations under Trump, communities are realizing that surveillance infrastructure built for "safety" can be repurposed for deportations overnight.

Data sharing scandals: Audits and investigations have revealed that ALPR data flows to more agencies than communities were told. Once that trust breaks, it's hard to rebuild.

Organized opposition: Groups like Eyes Off Eugene showed that sustained campaigns work. Other communities are copying the playbook.

Procurement as politics: The EFF and others have pushed the idea that surveillance purchases are political decisions, not just administrative ones. City councils are starting to agree.

The Playbook That's Working

If you want to stop surveillance cameras in your community, here's what's working:

1. Build a coalition. Austin had 30+ groups. You need numbers and diversity, civil liberties advocates, neighborhood associations, immigrant rights groups, privacy-focused tech workers.
2. Attend city council meetings. Every single one where surveillance is on the agenda. Show up. Speak. Bring others.
3. Frame it as a purchasing decision. Cities have procurement processes. Surveillance contracts go through them. Citizens have standing to question any city purchase.
4. Research the company. Flock Safety's practices, data sharing, installation without permission, opaque policies, give you ammunition. Use it.
5. Highlight immigration risks. This resonates with communities that might not otherwise care about surveillance. ALPR data can and does flow to ICE.
6. Be persistent. Eyes Off Eugene spent months. Cambridge started with a pause, then escalated. These campaigns aren't won in a single meeting.

What This Means

Twenty-three jurisdictions in one year isn't a trend. It's a movement.

Flock Safety and companies like them assumed communities would accept surveillance as inevitable. They're finding out that's not true. When people understand what these cameras do, who gets the data, how it's used, what happens when systems get repurposed, they push back.

The surveillance industry spent years normalizing license plate readers. Communities are spending 2025 denormalizing them.

Your city could be next. If you want it to be.

References

1. EFF, Local Communities Are Winning Against ALPR Surveillance: 2025 in Review (December 2025)
2. EFF, Procurement Power: When Cities Realized They Can Just Say No (December 2025)
3. Cambridge Day, Cambridge Terminates Flock Safety Contract (December 2025)
4. Register-Guard, Eugene, Springfield End Flock Safety Programs (December 2025)
5. Rogue Valley Times, Talent Pauses Flock Surveillance Cameras (December 2025)
6. San Marcos Record, Hays County Terminates Flock Safety Contract (October 2025)
7. Chicago Tribune, Evanston Terminates Flock Cameras After Immigration Data Sharing Revealed (2025)
8. The Olympian, 200 Attend Rally Against Flock Cameras in Olympia (December 2025)

Related

• 8 Cities Beat Flock Safety & ICE, Chicago, Austin, Oak Park: How they won
• Flock Safety: America's Surveillance Network, 100,000 cameras, 20 billion scans per month
• Flock Safety: 20 Billion Scans a Month, 4,000 immigration searches exposed
• Oregon Cities Reject Flock Safety, Eugene, Springfield, Bend, and more; statewide regulation coming
• The Complete ICE Surveillance Tech Stack
• Know Your Rights in ICE Encounters