{
  "id": 19175733,
  "title": "Two cities just voted to get Flock cameras out. It’s only the beginning.",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/09/two-cities-just-voted-to-get-flock-cameras-out-its-only-the-beginning",
  "topic": "culture",
  "section": "Culture",
  "published": "2026-11-09T16:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Vox",
    "slug": "vox",
    "url": "https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/509941/midterms-vote-flock-privacy-surveillance"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Aerial images captured Flock cameras in Burbank, California on September 14, 2026. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images\n\nConcerns about privacy and misuse by law enforcement have led to nationwide backlash against Flock cameras. Due to this, several cities have paused, not renewed, or canceled their contracts with Flock Safety this year.\n\nIn two states, Texas and Maine, citizens voted on the issue during the midterm elections. Both communities rejected the technology.\n\nWhile these are just two communities out of thousands, they show the possibility of taking on mass surveillance and winning.\n\nHowever, the fight against Flock's surveillance technology is far from over. Non-governmental entities, such as colleges, homeowners associations, and supermarkets, have started purchasing and deploying Flock cameras and sharing the data with law enforcement.\n\nThe battle will need to go beyond the ballot box.\n\nSome argue that Flock's AI-enabled automated license plate readers may help solve crimes, but there are concerns about misuse and constitutional issues.\n\nBoth York, Maine, and League City, Texas, took the issue to the ballot box. In York, residents overwhelmingly rejected the surveillance cameras, while in League City, the measure was technically non-binding, but the city council pledged to act on the vote.\n\nFlock's spokesperson responded by thanking the elected leaders and community members and stated that they respect the decision voters made.\n\nThe fight for privacy and against mass surveillance has been building for some time. Privacy advocates believe that people now understand they have a stake in surveillance technology and how it is used.\n\nHowever, non-government actors also present a separate accountability challenge, as private entities can contract for Flock cameras and share data with law enforcement without public input.",
  "summary": "As Flock cameras have quietly multiplied across the country in recent years, public concern about privacy, surveillance, and abuse of the technology by law enforcement has sparked nationwide backlash. This led to a number of cities pausing, not renewing, or canceling their contracts with Flock Safety, the leading company behind the controversial AI-enabled automated license […]",
  "key_points": [
    "Two U.S. cities, York and League City, voted against Flock cameras in midterm elections",
    "Concerns about privacy and misuse led to backlash against Flock cameras nationwide",
    "Fight against Flock surveillance is ongoing beyond ballot box, involving non-government entities"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}