Senators Target Flock Over ICE Access, Data Privacy

Senators Seek Answers Over Flock Safety’s License Plate Data Handling

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senators Adam Schiff (D‑California) and Ron Wyden (D‑Oregon) on Monday demanded that the private surveillance company Flock Safety clarify how it collects, stores, and shares license‑plate information, warning that the company’s technology could be used by law‑enforcement and immigration officials to target individuals without proper oversight.

Flock Safety, headquartered in California, offers a cloud‑based platform that aggregates data from thousands of cameras across the country. The system automatically recognizes and logs vehicle registration plates, storing them for a set period before they are purged. The technology is marketed to municipalities, transit agencies and law‑enforcement departments, which can then query the database to locate vehicles or identify suspects.

The senators’ letter cites a growing concern that the sheer volume of data and the ease with which it can be queried pose a privacy risk. “We are alarmed at the potential for Flock Safety’s license‑plate database to be used for surveillance that extends beyond the intended purpose of traffic enforcement,” Senator Schiff wrote. “The data could be exploited by law‑enforcement and immigration agencies to track and identify individuals without adequate safeguards.”

Wyden echoed his colleague’s concerns, adding that the lack of clear retention and sharing policies could make the database a tool for “unaccounted surveillance.” “If this data can be accessed by any agency without a warrant or judicial oversight, the privacy and civil‑liberty implications are serious,” he said.

Flock Safety has responded to the inquiry by affirming that it “comply[s] with all applicable privacy laws and industry best practices.” In a statement, the company said it “retains license‑plate data for no longer than 90 days unless a lawful request from a law‑enforcement agency extends the period.” It also said that any sharing of data is done only after a valid warrant or subpoena.

The company’s policy is consistent with a 2022 settlement with the City of Portland, Oregon, where the firm had faced a lawsuit alleging it stored license‑plate information for longer than the city’s privacy ordinance allowed. Under that settlement, Flock Safety agreed to delete plates after 90 days and to limit its data‑sharing practices.

Senator Wyden and Senator Schiff have called on Flock Safety to provide detailed documentation of its data‑collection practices, retention periods, and any third‑party sharing agreements. They also urged the company to adopt a transparency report and to engage with privacy advocates to build trust.

The request comes amid broader national discussions about the use of facial‑recognition and license‑plate databases. Several state governments and civil‑rights groups have called for tighter regulations on how private companies collect and share surveillance data, arguing that unchecked access can lead to over‑surveillance and discrimination.

Flock Safety’s CEO, who declined to be named, said the firm is “committed to protecting the privacy of individuals while supporting public safety efforts.” He added that the company “has a robust compliance framework in place to ensure all data handling aligns with federal and state law.”

Law‑enforcement officials in several states have defended the utility of license‑plate databases, citing their role in traffic‑law enforcement, stolen‑vehicle recovery, and crime investigations. “These systems are a vital tool for public safety, and we operate within strict legal boundaries,” said one spokesperson for the National Sheriffs Association.

The senators’ letter remains the first formal request for information from federal lawmakers to a private surveillance company about its data practices. Whether the request will prompt a congressional hearing, a subpoena, or a public policy shift remains to be seen. The debate highlights the tension between technological innovation, public safety, and individual privacy rights that continues to shape the U.S. regulatory landscape.