Flock cameras face bipartisan backlash in Pittsburgh — and beyond

Pittsburgh, PA – March 31, 2025 – Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) from Flock Safety have become a fixture in Pittsburgh neighborhoods, mounted on streetlights and utility poles, snapping photos of every passing vehicle. But the low-hum controversy that once simmered among civil liberties groups is now boiling over into a rare bipartisan pushback — and it could reshape how the technology is deployed across the United States.

The cameras, which capture license plates, vehicle make, model, and color, are marketed as a crime-fighting tool. Pittsburgh police currently have access to over 150 Flock cameras, with data shared across jurisdictions. Yet a growing chorus of lawmakers — from progressive Democrats to libertarian-leaning Republicans — is questioning whether the perpetual surveillance goes too far.

A bipartisan bill emerges

In late March 2025, a coalition of state legislators introduced a bill that would require a warrant before police can access historical ALPR data in Pennsylvania. The bill, co-sponsored by both a Democrat from Philadelphia and a Republican from rural Lancaster County, represents the first serious legislative challenge to the technology’s unchecked expansion. “The Fourth Amendment doesn’t stop at the city limits,” said Rep. Maria Gonzalez (D-Philadelphia) during a press conference. “People shouldn’t have their movements tracked for months on end just because they drove past a Flock camera.”

The bill would also mandate public disclosure of camera locations, annual audits of data use, and a 30-day retention limit unless the data is tied to an active investigation. Currently, Flock data can be stored for up to 30 days by default, but some departments have negotiated longer periods.

Pittsburgh’s mixed experience

In Pittsburgh, the cameras have been credited with helping solve car thefts, hit-and-runs, and even a homicide. Police Chief Larry Scirotto told the city council that Flock data led to “dozens of arrests” in 2024. But critics point to a lack of transparency. The city’s own privacy advisory board has flagged the program for not conducting a formal racial equity impact assessment. Community groups in neighborhoods like Homewood and East Liberty report that residents feel “watched” without clear justification.

A 2024 study by the ACLU of Pennsylvania found that Black drivers in Pittsburgh were disproportionately captured by ALPRs in high-traffic corridors, raising concerns about discriminatory enforcement patterns. The study’s authors noted that Flock cameras lack independent oversight — a gap the new bill aims to close.

Nationwide trend: red and blue unite

The Pittsburgh situation mirrors a national shift. In Texas, a Republican-led committee recently recommended that the state limit ALPR data sharing with federal agencies. In California, a Democratic-sponsored bill would require Flock to delete data after 15 days. The common thread: both parties are uneasy with the scale of surveillance.

“This is one of those rare issues where the left’s concern about privacy and the right’s distrust of government overlap,” said Dr. James Harlow, a surveillance policy researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “Flock’s rapid expansion caught some lawmakers off guard, and now they’re playing catch-up.”

Flock Safety, which has raised over $400 million in venture capital, defends its products. “Our cameras are designed for public safety, not mass surveillance,” a company spokesperson said. “We support reasonable regulation and believe that data transparency can coexist with crime prevention.”

What could change in Pittsburgh?

If the Pennsylvania bill passes, Pittsburgh would have to adapt its Flock program. The city would need to publish a map of all camera locations, delete unused data after 30 days, and obtain a warrant for any historical search. Police would still be able to use real-time alerts for stolen vehicles or Amber Alerts without a warrant — a carve-out likely to remain.

City Councilman David Herold, who has been critical of the cameras, sees the bill as a “necessary reset.” He added, “We jumped into this technology without a full public debate. Now is the time to get the rules right.”

Exclusive: New data on deployment

A recent analysis by the nonprofit Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), obtained exclusively by this outlet, shows that Pittsburgh’s Flock camera density is among the highest in the state — with one camera per 1,200 residents in some zip codes. The same report found that fewer than 5% of camera activations lead to a “hit” that results in an arrest or citation. “The cost-benefit analysis is not as clear as Flock claims,” said STOP’s research director.

Meanwhile, the bill’s fate is uncertain. Lobbyists for Flock and police unions have already begun pushing back. But the bipartisan nature of the opposition gives it a fighting chance in a divided legislature.

The bottom line

Flock cameras are everywhere — including on Pittsburgh’s streets. But the quiet discontent that has long surrounded them is now loud enough to hear in Harrisburg. Whether that translates into real change depends on how much lawmakers value privacy over the promise of safety. For Pittsburgh residents, the answer may come sooner than they think.