Trump backs Flock cameras, draws bipartisan privacy criticism

In recent public remarks, former President Donald Trump said he “likes” Flock surveillance cameras, drawing criticism from lawmakers in both parties who raised privacy and civil liberties concerns.

The cameras are sold by a private company that markets mounted units capable of scanning license plates and recording video. The company can store the data and make it searchable for law enforcement or available to subscribing neighborhood groups and other customers.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers criticized the endorsement, warning that wider use could increase tracking of innocent people, enable discriminatory policing and place sensitive location data in private hands without clear oversight. Some legislators called for rules on who may access the data, how long it is retained and what safeguards would prevent misuse.

Supporters, including local officials and neighborhood groups that subscribe to camera services, say plate-reading systems can speed criminal investigations, help recover stolen vehicles and deter car-based crime. Proponents point to contractual limits that operators sometimes place on data sharing.

Privacy advocates and technology experts cited specific risks: persistent records of vehicle movements can show where people live, work and worship; location data could be used for commercial purposes or shared with law enforcement without judicial review; accuracy problems and concentrated deployments could lead to biased enforcement.

Local governments have taken different approaches. Some cities and counties ban certain facial recognition and tracking tools, others require transparency and retention limits, and many have no formal policy. The private-model business-where a company sells or leases cameras and retains data on behalf of customers-creates questions about oversight of private contracts and public access.

Officials deciding whether to use these systems face choices about contract terms, data retention periods, auditing rights and access controls. Lawmakers proposing limits have suggested measures ranging from warrants for historical location data to bans on broad, continuous tracking.

Trump’s brief endorsement has increased attention on those policy choices and the mix of local rules that govern surveillance tools.