Fifty cities and counties have canceled, rejected, or deactivated Flock surveillance cameras since January 2025. The movement is accelerating. Twenty of those happened in the last four months alone.
From Bend, Oregon to Ithaca, New York, communities are deciding that 24/7 license plate tracking isn't worth the cost to privacy. And they're winning.
Birmingham can win too.
Why it matters
You don't have to accept surveillance cameras in your neighborhood as inevitable. Residents in cities just like ours have gotten these cameras shut off. Not through lawsuits or legislation, but by showing up and speaking out.
The playbook is clear, and it's already proven. Here's what's working:
Show up to public comment
The most consistent winning strategy is the simplest: pack the room.
In Eureka, California, nearly 50 residents spoke against Flock cameras at a single council meeting. All but one opposed the contract. The council voted unanimously to reject it.
In Denver, hundreds of residents wrote to their council members. Dozens filled the chamber holding "Flock No" signs. The council killed a $666,000 contract extension.
Council members listen when constituents show up.
Demand audits and accountability
When cities actually looked at how Flock cameras were being used, the results were damning.
In Austin, an audit revealed that over 20% of police searches lacked any documentation or justification. The audit also found contract language allowing data retention beyond what the council had approved. The council blocked the renewal.
In Louisville, Colorado, a community member discovered the system had been severely misrepresented to the public. The city deactivated the cameras.
Ask your city council: who is searching this data, and why?
Expose data sharing problems
Flock's own mistakes have been some of the strongest arguments against them.
In Oxnard, Mountain View, and Richmond, police chiefs independently discovered Flock was sharing local data with out-of-state and federal agencies without the cities' knowledge. All three shut down their systems.
In Sedona, Arizona, Flock told the council on August 13 that "there's no data sharing going on, I swear." Six days later, they admitted it had been happening with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Unanimous termination.
In Cambridge, Flock installed new cameras without the city's permission. In Staunton, Flock's CEO called critics "the same activist groups who want to defund the police." Both cities canceled their contracts.
Flock promises cities control over their data. The evidence says otherwise. Communities that dig into those promises and push back are getting results.
Sign petitions, build coalitions
In Scarsdale, New York, over 450 residents signed a petition opposing Flock cameras. The village terminated the contract. No packed council chambers. Just neighbors putting their names on paper.
In Austin, more than 30 community groups joined forces to defeat the contract. The breadth of opposition made it impossible for the council to dismiss as fringe.
You don't need 30 groups. But you do need neighbors standing together. That's exactly what we're doing in Birmingham.
Go deeper
Sources for every city mentioned above.
- Eureka rejects Flock unanimously
- Denver rejects $666K Flock contract
- Austin organizers cancel Flock contract (EFF)
- Louisville cameras misrepresented to the public (CBS)
- Scarsdale ends contract after 450-signature petition
- Sedona ends contract after Flock caught lying
- Staunton cancels after Flock CEO attacks critics
- Oxnard suspends cameras after data sharing breach
- Mountain View police chief disables cameras (CBS)
- Richmond shuts down system after nationwide sharing
- Cambridge ends contract after unauthorized installs
- Ithaca votes to end Flock contract
- Bend turns off Flock cameras (OPB)
450 signatures ended Flock in Scarsdale. How many will it take in Birmingham? Sign the petition and tell your council member that Birmingham deserves a say.