A network of more than 80,000 cameras across over 5,000 communities takes 600 million pictures per day — of license plates. These Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), owned by Flock Safety, use AI image processing to capture plates and vehicles’ identifying features around the clock. The data collected can be used to track specific vehicles practically anywhere across the camera network, and in some cases, they are used by local police departments to aid criminal investigations.

Recently, some Bay Area communities have turned away from Flock because of concerns about surveillance and past incidents involving the sharing of camera data with federal agencies. The cities of Los Altos Hills, Santa Cruz, and Mountain View all shut down their systems around January 2026. Saratoga and Cupertino followed suit, with the program being terminated across Santa Clara County after a vote in February. Other cities like San Jose have recently implemented stronger restrictions on the cameras to safeguard their usage. Many other communities across the country have done the same.

Burlingame has its own Flock camera system. Despite the pushback in other communities, though, Burlingame has retained confidence in its limited camera deployment. With 17 total cameras, Burlingame Police Lieutenant David Perna said the system is generally an “extremely effective” tool to aid investigations.

“It makes law enforcement efficient. It gives us the ability to quickly identify either a stolen vehicle, suspect vehicle, wanted subject, or develop a lead,” Perna said. “The cameras work both with license plates and without license plates — they are able to identify unique information on a vehicle like specialized wheels, … or if there’s a sticker on the back of the truck, or something like that.”

Burlingame’s Flock Cameras

Burlingame first discussed implementing Flock cameras in January 2022. After months of deliberation, the city council established a two-year contract for 17 cameras lasting until 2024, then extended it to a five-year contract in 2023, terminating in 2028. At a rate of $48,500 per year, the total camera deployment cost $242,500. 

Still, Burlingame’s network is relatively small — some large cities like San Francisco have three times the camera density, and many of Burlingame’s cameras operate on the city’s perimeter. During the council’s discussion on whether to install the cameras, a central topic was protecting the privacy of Burlingame citizens, according to Burlingame Mayor Michael Brownrigg.

“It all comes down to a fundamental misuse of personal data. That was, I think, the theme that was of concern to a couple of us in particular at the front end of this experiment,” Brownrigg, who was a council member in 2022, said.

Flock cameras in Burlingame have been used to successfully locate and apprehend criminals. Most notably, San Mateo resident Royhil Lakhan was arrested in November 2024 after three kidnappings and multiple groping incidents across San Mateo County. A few hours after producing a gun during a kidnapping attempt on Burlingame Avenue, Lakhan was arrested in Belmont — ALPRs had tracked the car’s movement.

At the same time, in-depth investigations of Flock camera systems across the country have revealed cases of data sharing with federal agencies, most notably Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Border Patrol, and the Department of Homeland Security. The cameras were used to track people involved in immigration warrants, anti-government protests, or abortion-related activity. Specific search terms entered into Flock networks included variants of “ICE,” “immigration,” “protest,” and “no kings,” among others, and related arrests were made.

An October 2025 investigation by the University of Washington Center for Human Rights found that at least 10 Washington police departments using the Flock network directly enabled federal access; at least eight departments were exposed to “back door” access — access not known or authorized by the local agency — and at least one agency provided “side door” access, in which staff within the police organizations made targeted lookups on behalf of federal agencies. A more damning August 2025 report from 404 Media covered news that Customs and Border Patrol had backdoor access to over 80,000 cameras across the country through a previously undisclosed pilot program. Flock announced that it “paused all federal pilots” around the same time in response to the controversy. Many other federal agencies were found to have been given access as well.

An earlier report from 404 Media in May 2025 showed that over 4,000 data searches had been conducted by local police on behalf of federal agencies, with a focus on immigration. Flock updated their system in October 2025 to require more rigid search justifications after receiving pushback, but certain staff continued to evade the safeguard with vague terms like “investigation” or “targeting.”

“It is a delicate balance between making sure you catch bad guys versus exposing good people to persecution, and I lived at one point in a country that had a lot of surveillance, and I didn’t like it,” Brownrigg said. “I have personal reservations about putting a camera on every corner and knowing what everyone is doing all the time.”

Mountain View city council voted to remove its Flock network in February 2026 after network audits showed that over 250 federal agencies had accessed camera data without authorization between August and November 2024. A “nationwide” data sharing setting on the city’s Flock dashboard had been “enabled without MVPD’s (Mountain View Police Department) permission or knowledge,” according to an official police report. A “statewide” lookup option had also been enabled, and the police report stated that “at no time during the implementation calls, meetings, tutorial, onboarding, or related presentations was a Statewide or Nationwide Lookup tool discussed, demonstrated, or presented to MVPD as a configurable feature.”

MVPD was not able to determine when or how the settings were changed, as Flock did not add settings auditing until late 2025.

“While the Flock Safety pilot program demonstrated clear value in enhancing our ability to protect our community and help us solve crimes, I personally no longer have confidence in this particular vendor,” said Mountain View Mayor Mike Canfield in an official statement.

According to Perna and Brownrigg, Burlingame’s Police Department (BPD) has kept strict control over its camera data. Data is erased after 30 days unless marked as part of an ongoing investigation. Flock has a dashboard for incoming and outgoing requests to share data with other departments. Perna said the BPD vets each organization before sharing, and does not share with departments outside California. A 2023 share request from Texas, for instance, was denied. California police departments are also prohibited from sharing their ALPR data with ICE or other out-of-state agencies via California Senate Bill 34.

“I am reasonably confident that our data cannot be sucked into an immigration procedure. It cannot be sucked away by federal agencies,” Brownrigg said. “We have absolute control over who can see our data, and we only share our data with people who are involved demonstrably in criminal investigations, so I think that’s a pretty good safeguard.”

Still, difficulties can arise from the fact that the tool has both negative privacy implications and a record of being useful in reducing crime. The City of Richmond disabled its Flock camera network in late 2025 after discovering it also unknowingly had the “nationwide” sharing setting enabled. According to Richmond Police Chief Timothy Simmons, car thefts increased 33% in the few months that followed — the council voted to begin reenabling the Flock system on March 17, 2026.

“When it comes to using that information to track other people down for separate purposes, I would say that’s a pretty big thing to reconsider,” junior Danielle Song said. “But I feel like it’s difficult to say like, ‘oh, you should get rid of them completely just because they are helpful.’”

Additionally, Perna said that public perception of the cameras as a privacy concern could impede their long-term effectiveness in the community — or their existence at all.

“I think that a lot of times when these law enforcement tools … [lose] the public support, it’s very difficult to get it back,” Perna said. “We’re basically a representation of our community. So if our community says they don’t want something, you don’t have a lot of choice.”

Despite the controversies, Perna and BPD Patrol Officer Mark Wallace — representing the BPD — view the ALPR system as a valuable investigative tool, especially considering the department’s limited staffing. According to Wallace, only four active patrol officers cover the City of Burlingame, which has a population of over 30,000.

“Given our staffing and our resources that we really don’t have, we really have to rely on these tools to help us efficiently look for vehicles that are involved in activity, and so without these tools, it would make our efficiency and our effectiveness of those four people,” Wallace said. “It would really reduce that considerably.”

Wallace mentioned he has to be sensitive to recent concerns about local police working with federal immigration agencies.

“I don’t want to enter in a political conversation, but because things have become so politicized lately, I have to reassure people that I’m here to protect them, irrespective of what country they may come from, or what culture or what creed or religion they have, and that ICE is not something that’s going to come into consideration with my contact,” Wallace said.