Image of Flock cameras

Andrea Austria / Media Matters

Research/Study Research/Study

Right-wing media are divided over Flock surveillance cameras

While some praise the technology as an “incredible” tool that will “keep us all safe,” others warn it will usher in “a surveillance state”

Written by Sage Hodil & Ben Van Bloem

Published

With public anger building against Flock Safety over privacy concerns with its database of automated license plate scanners, right-wing media figures are split on the surveillance company. Those defending Flock say the cameras are an “incredible” and “extremely useful investigative tool” to fight crime and “keep us all safe.” Others argue the cameras are “dystopian” and will turn the United States into “a full-fledged surveillance state.”

Jump to section...

  • Flock is facing public backlash against its surveillance products

    • Flock Safety is a vendor for surveillance technologies sold to law enforcement, including automated license plate readers, or ALPRs. While ALPRs have been used by law enforcement agencies for decades, Flock cameras “are different from typical license plate readers because they are much more powerful.” As the ACLU of Oregon notes, Flock cameras don’t just analyze license plates, they “record and analyze every passing vehicle — the make, model and color of a car, other identifiers like scratches and dents, and anything else they can see. Even a pedestrian, bicyclist, or animal who happens to be caught in the frame of a Flock camera can be swept up in the vast and unregulated Flock surveillance network. The cameras then analyzes the recordings using an AI algorithm, uploads the data unencrypted to a national surveillance platform, runs the data against sometimes faulty ‘hit lists,’ and then stores the data in a manner that permits access by law enforcement and Flock users anywhere.” [ACLU of Oregon, 9/18/25] 
    • Amid the implementation of these products, there has been “legal and illegal” backlash directed at the company due to privacy concerns. In dozens of cities and states across the country, Flock has had its contracts canceled, its cameras have been disconnected or vandalized, and people have gathered for “protests and education sessions” against the company. The ACLU’s Jay Stanley stated, “We're seeing opposition from the left. We're seeing opposition from MAGA Republicans. We're seeing opposition from mainstream Republicans, from centrists. … This grassroots uprising is just really remarkable.” [NPR, 8/21/26]
    • Recently, the company has “been reeling from a growing PR crisis” amid reports of misuse of the system by law enforcement officers, including many who have used the camera database “to stalk women without their knowledge or consent.” The Washington Post found that Flock was used “for unauthorized purposes” in dozens of cases where “rogue police were able to monitor their subjects’ movements with precision and secrecy.” In some instances, “officers used the technology to spy on their wives, their girlfriends, their exes, their exes’ new partners or women they wanted to meet.” There have also been documented cases of Flock cameras identifying “the wrong suspect” and law enforcement using the programs to “track a woman suspected of attempting to get an abortion.” While Flock has made minor “software updates” to address privacy concerns, vandalism of the cameras is increasing and the company is losing contracts with cities across the country. [Futurism, 8/21/26; CBS News, 11/13/25; The Texas Tribune, 8/24/26; The Washington Post, 8/2/26] 

  • Some in right-wing media defended Flock and the use of its surveillance network while downplaying privacy concerns: “Cry me a river”

    • Fox’s Cheryl Casone praised Flock cameras and AI as “incredible” for their ability to track down suspected criminals and told people concerned about privacy to “cry me a river.” Casone insisted people who oppose Flock are “going to be grateful that these cameras exist” when they are a victim of a crime. Casone continued, “So you can sit at home and complain about privacy and I'm just walking down the street, I don't want a camera on me. Well, too bad. … Cry me a river, folks.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 7/27/26] 
    • Free Press reporter Maya Sulkin claimed, “Flock Safety cameras aren't interested in you — unless you're a kidnapper, a thief, or someone who intends to do harm.” Sulkin said Flock cameras “keep us all safe” and attacked people for “treating” the cameras “like the enemy.” [Facebook, The Free Press, 8/4/26] 
    • Daily Wire host Matt Walsh defended Flock as a useful tool for targeting migrants despite surveillance concerns, claiming, “There are a few things even worse than mass surveillance — mass demographic replacement is one of those things.” Walsh continued, “Don't let your concerns about mass surveillance, which are totally legitimate, turn you into an unwitting supporter of mass demographic replacement.” [The Daily Wire, The Matt Walsh Show, 7/21/26] 
    • Fox News interviewed Flock CEO Garrett Langley multiple times to defend the product’s effectiveness in solving crimes and finding missing people. In one appearance, Langley touted, “Last year alone we helped solve more than a million crimes. … Every day you hear stories of just incredible results.” He also dismissed criticisms that Flock is unconstitutional by mentioning that “over 40 courts” have found automatic license plate readers to be “incredibly constitutional.” In another segment, Fox host and former Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany introduced Langley with the claim that Flock had helped detect “10,000 missing people” and that Flock's founders were “confident in their cameras that they could be used to solve cases like the Nancy Guthrie disappearance.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/11/26; Fox News, Saturday In America, 8/22/26]
    • Daily Wire host Ben Shapiro said he is “all for decent limitations on the use of” Flock cameras, but “people freaking out about … a surveillance state” are responding to “an exaggerated problem.” Shapiro also stated, “Abuse of any system can happen. But if the idea is that having cameras on the roads is somehow a violation of your privacy, I don't think you know what the word privacy means.” [The Daily Wire, The Ben Shapiro Show, 8/18/26] 
    • In an article titled “Don’t Fear Flock Cameras,” National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry praised Flock as “an extremely useful investigative tool” and downplayed the digital surveillance by claiming we are already “living in a panopticon.” Lowry wrote, “It is understandable that people don’t like the idea that they are, in effect, living in a panopticon,” but claimed that since surveillance technology is so ubiquitous already “the only reliable way to ensure that you aren’t being recorded is to stay inside — and draw the curtains.” [National Review, 8/21/26] 

  • Others in right-wing media slammed Flock for creating a “panopticon” and “a full-fledged surveillance state” like “a much more efficient East Germany”

    • Newsmax host Carl Higbie called Flock Safety “trash,” claimed its products raise “major privacy concerns,” and later reported on the company’s use of drones, saying, “If one of those flies over [my property], I will shoot it down.” [Newsmax, Carl Higbie Frontline, 7/21/26, 7/27/26]
    • Former Fox host and right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson attacked The Free Press video defending Flock cameras as “disgusting,” “anti-American,” “totalitarian,” and “Soviet propaganda.” [YouTube, The Tucker Carlson Show, 8/14/26] 
    • Carlson also compared Flock’s system to “a much more efficient East Germany” and questioned why “there are still rapes” or “any crime at all” with the company’s cameras in operation. Carlson said, “We have a panopticon, we have a totally comprehensive surveillance state. There's nothing you say that is hidden. … If you haven't flown recently, let me reassure you there's nothing you do that the authorities can't find out about, ever. Well, that raises the obvious question — why are there still rapes? Why are people assaulted on the street? Why is there any crime at all? I mean, as long as you're going to live in a much more efficient East Germany, why wouldn't you get rid of crime? It's called Flock Safety, Flock Safety. So, why isn't it safe?” [YouTube, The Tucker Carlson Show, 8/5/26]
    • Blaze Media co-founder and conservative talk radio host Glenn Beck said he is “against these Flock cameras,” adding, “You cannot allow this to happen. We are creating a panopticon.” Beck said, “If you're against these Flock cameras, and I am, I'm going to tell you exactly what you need to do.” He later told his audience to “ask your state legislature why the law governing this was written before the smartphone existed. Ask this month while it's still a debate, not a fixture. The Fourth Amendment says searches need a name on it. There's no name on Flock cameras, which means the name is yours. You cannot allow this to happen. We are creating a panopticon.” [Mercury Radio Arts, The Glenn Beck Program, 7/29/26]
    • Daily Caller columnist Mary Rooke linked Flock cameras to “the arrival of a full-fledged surveillance state” and praised “masked heroes” for “fighting back” by vandalizing the cameras. Rooke also wrote, “Disabling cameras that enable warrantless mass tracking is a legitimate form of self-defense for liberty that the Founding Fathers would have fully supported.” [The Daily Caller, 7/6/26] 
    • Former Infowars host David Knight called proposed Flock drones “another dystopian vision of the future” and said that the company is “not the good guys in all this stuff.” Knight said, “This is another dystopian vision of the future — flying surveillance drones. That's what Flock is working on. So they're not the good guys in all this stuff.” [Rumble, The David Knight Show, 7/27/26]
    • Former Infowars employee Harrison Smith noted that there have been “dozens of reports” of police using “Flock’s network to track former romantic partners.” Smith said, “There have been dozens of reports at this point of police using Flock's network to track former romantic partners. One cop in Florida used Flock to track and eventually pull over a woman he met days earlier and was attracted to. So isn't that nice? If a cop sees you and thinks you're good looking, he can just jot down your license plate and just follow you everywhere you go 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Isn't that nice? Doesn't that make you feel safe, ladies?” [Rumble, War Room, 8/11/26]
    • Host of The Based Report Frankie Stockes said he is “glad that people are fighting back against Flock” and “having victories,” but suggested the company is being put forward as a “sacrificial lamb” so that other “more advanced” technologies can help “the construction of a surveillance state.” Peters said, “It's Flock, Flock, Flock. And I'm glad that people are aware of Flock. I'm glad that people are fighting back against Flock. I'm glad that the people are having victories against Flock. But it is more than Flock and part of me is really beginning to think that Flock has been set out here as a sacrificial lamb. As more advanced technology is perfected, for instance, in Israel, for instance, in the rug-pull ICE raids that were never meant to facilitate mass deportations, they were meant to fuel the construction of a surveillance state all over this country under the guise of mass deportations.” [Rumble, The Based Report, 8/11/26]