The City of Salem joins a growing list of communities that are ending contracts with Flock Safety, saying there are not enough protections governing the data collected by the company's automated license plate readers, even as police departments across the South Shore continue to embrace the technology as a tool to fight crime.
“The City of Salem is not renewing the Salem Police Department’s contract with Flock Safety and will be removing the Flock Automatic License Plate Readers (‘ALPRs’) that are currently installed in Salem,” Mayor Dominick Pangallo and Police Chief Lucas Miller said in a July 23 statement. “The City has determined that there are insufficient protections for the ALPR data generated by Flock’s systems. Such data should be owned and used only in furtherance of Salem’s public safety priorities.”
The decision comes as automated license plate readers have become increasingly common across Massachusetts, including on the South Shore.
Dozens of the cameras have appeared across the region. An online map provided by FlockHopper, a privacy-focused navigation service that maps known ALPR locations, shows cameras in Weymouth, Hingham, Cohasset, Norwell, Marshfield, Pembroke, Plymouth, Rockland and Abington. FlockHopper says its camera data is community-sourced and may not be complete or current.
Flock Adoption in Norwell
Norwell currently has two Flock cameras that were purchased through a grant approved by the Select Board. Police Chief Edward Lee said he views the cameras as both an investigative tool and a crime deterrent.
“Individuals who know that a community has automated license plate recognition technology are less likely to target the area, helping to reduce crimes and enhance public safety,” Lee said. “The system also benefits the community by providing officers with timely information during active incidents, allowing for a faster and more coordinated response. By quickly identifying vehicles associated with wanted persons, AMBER Alerts, Silver Alerts, or other public safety threats, officers can take prompt action to protect the community.”
The Norwell Police Department appeared before the Select Board on Dec. 3, 2025, to discuss the cameras and seek approval for the program. The board approved the program unanimously.
At that meeting, Norwell Police Detective Jeff Silva said the town had already benefited from information collected by cameras in neighboring communities, highlighting the ability of police departments to share information through the system.
“The strength in the system is the sharing,” Silva said. “You’d be surprised at how many of them are out there. If you go through Derby Street… there’s one right at the entrance.”
“These systems are great,” Select Board member John McGrath commented at the time.
"Unacceptable risks to our collective privacy"
That ability to share data across communities is one of the features police departments say makes Flock useful. It is also at the center of concerns raised by privacy and civil liberties organizations about how the technology can be used.
According to the ACLU of Massachusetts, at least 80 Massachusetts law enforcement agencies have contracted with Flock Safety. The organization says Flock has deployed nearly 90,000 cameras nationally.
“License plate readers pose unacceptable risks to our collective privacy and safety, and it’s been immensely gratifying to see so many communities fighting for — and achieving — democratic oversight over this technology,” said Kade Crockford, director of technology and justice programs at the ACLU of Massachusetts.
Some civil liberties and digital rights groups say police departments have used automated license plate reader technology to monitor political activity and people attending demonstrations.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported last year that the Grand Rapids Police Department in Michigan conducted five searches of Flock Safety’s system that coincided with the Stand Up and Fight Back Rally in February 2025. According to EFF, those searches reached roughly 650 camera networks, with the reason for the searches logged as “Protest.”
EFF reported that more than 50 police departments across the country had used Flock Safety’s database in connection with political demonstrations, including No Kings protests. The organization has argued that without clear limits on access, the technology could allow law enforcement agencies to monitor activists and others participating in constitutionally protected activity.
Privacy advocates have also pointed to cases in which individual police officers allegedly used license plate reader databases for personal purposes.
The Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law firm that has challenged license plate reader programs in court, said an ongoing review of media reports and public records has identified at least 26 cases nationwide in which officers allegedly used automated license plate reader systems to monitor current or former romantic partners, romantic interests or others for personal reasons. Most of the incidents identified by the organization have occurred since 2024.
In one case, prosecutors accused Milwaukee police officer Josue Ayala of using the department’s Flock system to conduct 179 searches involving someone he was dating and that person's former partner. Ayala resigned and later pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office.
The Institute for Justice says most of the officers included in its review faced criminal charges and resigned or were fired.
Flock Safety says its systems include privacy protections and auditing capabilities intended to identify improper use. The company says agencies control their own data and determine which other agencies may access it.
Questions have also been raised about inaccurate license plate reader results and how police interpret information returned by the systems.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center has cited research finding that one license plate reader system misidentified the state associated with a license plate about 10% of the time. The finding does not mean 10% of all Flock searches identify the wrong vehicle, but privacy groups say recognition errors can have serious consequences when police rely heavily on automated results.
According to reporting by Times of San Diego, a Flock camera played a role in the arrest of Hugo Parra, a man who was later determined to have been about five miles from the scene of an attempted carjacking.
Police were searching for a red Alfa Romeo when the system returned an image of another red Alfa Romeo several miles away. Parra was arrested and remained jailed for nearly a month before the charges were dropped, according to Times of San Diego. Parra and the vehicle's driver later filed claims against the city alleging police misinterpreted surveillance evidence and failed to consider information establishing their whereabouts.
Cohasset Police have installed four such cameras since 2024. Chief Quigley received pushback from the Select Board in January of 2025 over funding requests for 'town-wide camera system' camera system.
At the time, he acknowledging the value of security cameras in law enforcement. "The cop in me likes these things. It makes our job easier," said Quigley, which he followed with an expression of personal reservations about expanded surveillance. "Personally, I'm against it as a police officer... I don't like surveillance. It's a great tool, but used for the wrong purposes, it can really, really get out of hand and I wouldn't want to see that."
Local Police Support Use
In Norwell, Silva told the Select Board last year that he believed safeguards governing the town's system addressed many of the privacy concerns surrounding the technology.
“As far as the data, the data is a hundred percent owned by Norwell,” Silva said. “Pictures are deleted every 30 days automatically and it's end-to-end encrypted. It can never be sold, it can never go anywhere else. I don't foresee any issues.”
Other South Shore police departments have similarly defended their use of the cameras.
Pembroke Police Chief Wendy LaPierre said her department has installed six Flock cameras and credited them with helping investigators solve crimes.
“Our decision to install Flock cameras gave us a tool that we can use to protect our businesses and residents, while maintaining their privacy,” LaPierre said. “These cameras have allowed us to solve crimes that might not have been solved without the Flock Cameras.”
LaPierre also noted that "Flock Cameras don't capture faces or look at the occupants of vehicles, they only capture objective evidence, meaning vehicle registration plates, and vehicle characteristics, such as color, make, roof racks, bumper stickers, etc."
Salem's decision highlights a growing debate over whether the safeguards adopted by individual communities are sufficient when license plate information can potentially become part of a much larger network.
For police, that network can provide investigators with information about vehicles that have traveled far beyond their own communities. For critics, the same capability raises questions about how broadly information about ordinary drivers can be searched, shared and retained.
Hingham Police Chief David Jones, Hanover Police Chief Timothy Kane, Cohasset Police Chief William Quigley and Marshfield Police Chief Phillip Tavares did not respond to a request for comment for this story.