In the next few weeks the Watertown Police Department will have access to new equipment that can capture images of license plates of passing cars. The technology is intended to help with criminal investigations, but some have expressed concerns about how it will be used, including the ACLU of Massachusetts.
City Manager George Proakis provided information about the Flock Safety program to the City Council on Nov. 25. The Flock system was approved in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget and eight cameras will be installed on major roadways in Watertown.
“What the cameras do is they capture the rear license plates of passing vehicles, similar to the way a toll camera would and upload the image onto a secure system, and the system they’re uploading it onto is accessible only by the Watertown Police Department,” Proakis said.
Watertown Police have already been assisted by information from Flock cameras set up in other communities, Proakis said.
“The reason why our Police Department brought this forward, and the reason why I believe it makes sense to keep moving forward with these is because these cameras are going to significantly contribute to public safety in Watertown,” Proakis said. “In fact, we have already benefited from the Flock safety images captured by other Massachusetts communities when they’ve been willing to share them with us. Our formal requests to other Massachusetts departments have led to arrests tied to an armed robbery in Watertown already, and helped the Police Department in locating a missing person and also helped solve a breaking and entering case in our City, as well.”
The ACLU of Mass. reached out to Watertown officials, Proakis said, expressing concerns about how Flock can be used. Proakis noted that the group did not completely oppose the use of the cameras, but had recommended conditions for using them.
A statement on the ACLU of Mass.’s website reads, in part:
“Individual departments should stop voluntarily sharing data with out-of-state and federal agencies. They should redraft contracts with Flock to ensure their department retains full control of all data they collect. Finally, police departments must adopt internal policies requiring that every Flock network search be justified by a specific, documented reason for the inquiry, clarifying to all officers and staff that a non-descriptive entry like “investigation” will not suffice.”
Proakis said that Watertown’s policy for using the data from the Flock cameras include all the group’s suggestions as well as some others.
‘The Watertown Police Department will not share any images or access with any federal agencies or any departments outside of Massachusetts,” Proakis said. “They’ll also automatically block all requests related to anything involving some of the items that have been very concerning to people in the information I’ve received about protected health care cases, about immigration cases, the sort of things that are not related to the type of criminal investigations that Massachusetts police departments spend their time doing.”
The cameras take pictures of the rear license plate of vehicles, Proakis said, and do not capture video or have a live feed. Watertown Police officers can only access the information under certain circumstances
“Internal police staff will be able to access the images, but they’ll need to document a case or investigation associated with each search they’re only if they’re looking for something related to a case,” Proakis said. “The history of all internal access will be audited by a captain in the (Watertown) Police Department each month to ensure that the internal access is being used appropriately.”
Watertown’s contract with Flock states that the City of Watertown is the sole owner of the images taken by the flock cameras in town, Proakis said, and the Police Department maintains strict control over access to the data that is captured.
“No other department or agency, internal or external, has access to it,” Proakis said.
He added that, “The Watertown Police Department will share images of the license plates, but only with other Massachusetts municipalities, and they’ll have to submit a formal request connected with a legitimate criminal investigation. Each of these requests will be reviewed and either accepted or denied by the Watertown Police Department.”
Proakis said the City will post a frequently asked questions page about the Flock cameras on the City of Watertown’s website, the WPD’s website, and the Watertown Police will host a Tuesday Night Talk focused on technology being usd in town, including Flock cameras and the body cameras worn by Watertown Police officers.
I imagine most residents have never read 1984, but rather they have a Cliff Notes’ vague idea of the novel, What is so amazing about the novel is how George Orwell knew what was coming in the future. However, it could be argued that 1984 is actually a love story gone wrong.
Anyway, put vaseline in your back plate if you want to say flock u. Otherwise let em track you.
This ks a terrible, hardly thought out decision by the Watertown PD and Council. Flock is a deceptive company and our City has no guidance, documentation, or ordinance for managing electronic surveillance data. I urge anyone concerned about this to contact the Council immediately.
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-surveillance-flock-philippines
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/30/license-plate-trackers-pushback-00670550
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/denver-city-councilmembers-police-department-audit-license-plate-camera-data-usage/73-3777d34d-7723-4397-af37-716a6db6ebd9
Dear Members of the Watertown City Council,
On behalf of the Watertown Human Rights Commission (WHRC), please find attached our letter regarding the City’s contract with Flock Safety.
While we support efforts to improve public safety, we respectfully urge the Council to ensure the contract is carefully drafted to fully protect community safety, individual privacy, and local control of all collected data—especially for immigrant residents and other vulnerable populations.
Recent actions in other municipalities and local reporting reflect growing public concern about the use of license-plate camera technology. We share these concerns and appreciate your careful consideration.
Cambridge chose to pause use of such cameras amid privacy concerns.
Watertown News
Thank you for your time and leadership. Members of the Commission would be glad to meet if helpful.
Sincerely,
—
Xin Peng (he/him/his),
Watertown Human Rights Commissioner
Dear Members of the Watertown City Council,
The Watertown Human Rights Commission respectfully urges the City Council to fully consider community safety, privacy, and civil rights implications as the City contracts with Flock Safety.
While Flock technology may support public safety, it is essential to understand the potential risk for immigrant residents and other vulnerable populations. Even though the Watertown Police Department does not collaborate with ICE, federal systems—such as national fingerprint databases—can still create indirect pathways for federal access to local data. We ask the Council to ensure that similar unintended access cannot occur with Flock data.
We request that the City provide oversight on Flock regarding:
● Whether federal agencies, including ICE or DHS, can access Flock data directly or
indirectly.
● How Flock handles federal requests for data.
● What safeguards prevent unauthorized or unintended sharing.
● What contractual protections can guarantee that Watertown maintains control of its data
and is not sold to other parties.
As private corporations are increasingly selling new surveillance technologies to law
enforcement agencies, we expect rigorous oversight of these technologies in order to protect
Watertown’s most vulnerable residents from over-policing.
Sincerely,
Watertown Human Rights Commission
This is a very bad move and should have been vetted more. The idea that these files cannot go beyond WPD is not necessarily true. A court has ruled that Flock records are public records. Some hackers can hack a camera in 30 seconds. These records are not safe. Many cities from conservative Oklahoman ones to liberal Californian ones have rolled back their decision to employ these cameras for various reasons – abuse, erroneous data, privacy concerns and the undermining of the bill of rights. And if the reasons to put these in is for retail theft then these corporations need to put in their own cameras in and not leverage public resources. God knows they already have our money! Does a smart innovative company want cameras around when bringing in particular materials for projects? – corporate espionage did not go away, never mind insurance companies and nosy neighbors. It is going to suck when you have to report a minor fender bender, and you are going to hate people knowing your banking habits or medical appointment routines. What about the most vulnerable? – domestic violence survivors, children on the run from an abusive parent, informants, witness protection recipients or anyone who has to go into hiding? You are going to solve for the theft of a lipstick but not a serial killers whose people killed the eyewitness parked at the safehouse?
For more information:
https://www.404media.co/judge-rules-flock-surveillance-images-are-public-records-that-can-be-requested-by-anyone/
https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-gives-law-enforcement-all-over-the-country-access-to-your-location/
https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/
https://www.tedlaw.com/flock-surveillance-expansion-legal-issues/
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/15/flock-safety-claims-it-can-rid-the-us-of-crime-even-as-cities-rid-themselves-of-flock/
https://krishnamoorthi.house.gov/media/press-releases/ranking-members-krishnamoorthi-and-garcia-demand-accountability-flock-group
https://www.govtech.com/biz/flock-safety-pushes-back-on-data-breach-product-criticism
https://centralcurrent.org/syracuse-lawmakers-propose-ending-flocks-ability-to-put-license-plate-readers-near-city-streets/
https://www.oakpark.com/2025/09/02/why-i-voted-to-cancel-flock-cameras/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/11/flock-haters-cross-political-divides-to-remove-error-prone-cameras/
https://www.redrocknews.com/2025/08/21/sedona-city-council-was-right-to-shut-down-flock-spy-cameras/
https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-gubernatorial-candidates-support-legislative-control-flock-cameras-forum/69478582
https://www.webpronews.com/flocks-surveillance-storm-error-ridden-cameras-ignite-bipartisan-backlash/
https://qz.com/flock-ai-license-plate-surveillance-startup-cameras-per-1851294024
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/flock-license-plate-reader-homeowners-association-safe-problems
https://campaignzero.org/the-private-companies-quietly-building-a-police-state/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/03/10/how-tracking-someones-movements-can-make-them-look-guilty-even-when-theyre-not/
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/10/24/talk-emotional-reliance-ai/
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/lawsuit-challenges-san-joses-warrantless-alpr-mass-surveillance
https://www.wired.com/story/flock-uses-overseas-gig-workers-to-build-its-surveillance-ai/
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/08/06/analysis-of-flock-use-by-wisconsin-cops-reveals-trends-raises-questions/
https://www.providencejournal.com/story/opinion/letters/2025/12/07/flock-cameras-posing-risks-standing-up-to-bullying-letters/87474248007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z112626p001350c001350u112216d00—-v112626&gca-ft=29&gca-ds=sophi
The key is how the data is used per the other commenters. WPD should be very transparent as to the questions posted by Watertown Human rights committee with regard to oversight.
Was anything mentioned in the Town Council discussions around this area?
There wasn’t really a discussion at the meeting. City Manager George Proakis provided the information during his communications time.
Given all the other previous comments, it is best not to gather such data at all. Any contract could be challenged by a court. Whatever happened to actual detective work and nosy neighbors? Park some cruisers by areas of reoccurring theft. Again, retail can put cameras in the stores and parking lots. Why does the public have to do their work for them, and pay for it? The courts and third party implications really pose dangers – a witness to a serious crime can get deported, an abusive ex can purchase his ex-wife’s whereabouts, an insurance company can purchase your coming and going from an oncology center, your employer can see if you have another job or are looking for one, competitors can can figure out what you are bidding on, etc. And what if it is wrong – one digit is transcribed incorrectly and that then gets spread exponentially across databases? How can you clear your name? The safeguards are not strong enough. So don’t start it in the first place.