Cambridge committee signals move to end Flock ALPR contract after unexpected camera reinstall and privacy concerns

The Cambridge Public Safety Committee on Monday reviewed the city’s paused deployment of automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs) after staff discovered two Flock Safety cameras had been reinstalled under a preexisting work order even though the department had directed cameras be taken down.

City Manager Ian Huang told the committee the incident and broader security concerns had “shaken” the city’s confidence in the vendor. Huang said the city had been on pause while negotiating contract amendments and that, following the discovery, staff are “on the path toward terminating the contract” with Flock and will restart consideration of ALPR technology with greater community engagement and legal protections.

Police Commissioner Christine Elo said the department ordered cameras removed in November 2025 after council and community concerns about data retention and sharing. Deputy Superintendent described a recent cross‑jurisdictional case involving a stolen vehicle and masked, armed individuals and argued that, had ALPRs been active, the technology “could have at least got five firearms off the street.” He said police administratively deactivated the city’s Flock account and restricted admin access when the pause began.

Kevin Kane, Flock Safety’s director of government affairs, told the committee the company notified law enforcement when it discovered the two cameras and said “at no point in time was any data searched, accessed, queried, or anything like that.” Kane said Flock does not own or sell customer data, that imagery and plate reads are encrypted, and that the platform records every search in an audit log.

Representatives of the ACLU of Massachusetts and a local civil‑liberties group presented public‑records findings and Flock network audit excerpts they said show large numbers of devices and searches, some with explicit reasons such as “ICE” or “immigration.” Gideon Epstein of the ACLU said his office’s records show search reasons can be vague (for example “investigation”) and that external access to nationwide ALPR networks has been used in cases tied to civil‑immigration and reproductive‑law enforcement. “We ultimately think that there’s no process or mechanism to limit data sharing that will be completely adequate,” Epstein said, and recommended rejecting Flock for Cambridge.

Several residents and experts who signed up for public comment urged the committee to discontinue the vendor contract and expand civilian oversight. Concerns raised included cameras placed near public housing and health centers, data retention and security, the company’s national‑sharing model, and the risk that external searches could be used by agencies engaged in civil‑immigration enforcement. A number of speakers also urged the city to review other data partnerships (including the Boston Regional Intelligence Center and federal grant programs) that may enable sharing beyond local control.

Committee members asked detailed operational and legal questions. Councilors were told by Flock and police that the city’s retention policy is 30 days and that the vendor offers two‑factor authentication and query filters for sensitive categories; police described the cameras’ initial deployment as a limited pilot deployed at high‑traffic corridors. When asked whether any personal data were exposed as a result of the reinstall, Flock and police responded that no searches or data exposures have been identified.

Although the city manager said staff are preparing to terminate the contract, there was no formal termination motion or committee vote on that action at the meeting. The committee adjourned after a roll‑call vote on a motion to adjourn, with five members voting yes.

What’s next: City staff said they will return to the council with recommended next steps, including potential contract termination and a broader, community‑engaged review of surveillance policy, vendor options, and oversight mechanisms.