Multiple Connecticut towns installed Flock cameras to fight crime, but are now pulling them over privacy concerns

The towns of Killingworth and Windsor in Connecticut are removing their Flock Safety license plate cameras because of growing concerns about data privacy and the security of the information these devices collect. The cameras were originally brought in to help local law enforcement solve crimes and monitor traffic. But officials now believe the risks to resident privacy are greater than the benefits the technology offers.

According to WFSB, Killingworth installed four of these cameras along Route 81 in the fall. Because the town does not have its own police department and relies on a single resident state trooper, the cameras were meant to address issues like speeding. The speed limit on that road changes depending on whether school is in session, so the goal was to make the area safer. 

Resident Scott Prisley acknowledged that speeding is a real problem on the road, saying, “Yeah, I would say there’s quite a bit of speeding,” but he was clear about his feelings on the cameras, adding, “I don’t like it.” Public opposition was visible and direct. A protest sign was placed under one of the cameras with the message: “MASS SURVEILLANCE CAMERA. YOUR LOCATION IS BEING TRACKED.”

Security concerns and poor contract timing pushed Killingworth to walk away from Flock

First Selectman Eric Couture said the decision to remove the cameras came after a series of reports raised questions about how the data was being stored and who could access it. Flock cameras have also drawn attention for other placement controversies, including Flock cameras installed near a children’s playground, which raised further questions about where these devices are being placed.

Couture said, “Literally the day after I signed the contract, I think the first major story came out about some of the security concerns around Flock,” and noted that “As the months continued, those stories kept coming in.”

Flock attempted to address these concerns, but the pressure on the town did not ease. Couture said, “They tried to allay some of those concerns, but it’s a constant pressure,” and added, “People have valid Fourth Amendment concerns. Valid concerns about their data being shared, being tracked where they’re going.”

The town eventually concluded that the cameras were not providing enough benefit to justify keeping them. Couture said, “Sometimes you can overestimate what the benefits of something will be,” and added, “So, it’s unfortunate, but it’s a lesson learned.” Killingworth is now facing an exit fee to break the contract, though the exact amount has not yet been determined.

At least two dozen other towns across Connecticut still use Flock cameras, including West Hartford, Cheshire, Milford, and Clinton. The pushback against these cameras has not always been peaceful, as seen in a case where a man allegedly cut down a Flock camera over constitutional concerns. 

On its website, Flock states that its cameras only capture license plates and not faces, and that local agencies remain in control of who can access the data. Flock did not respond to a request for comment.

The decisions by Killingworth and Windsor reflect a broader tension between public safety tools and privacy rights. For these two towns, the uncertainty around how personal data is managed was enough to move away from the cameras and return to traditional methods of law enforcement and traffic monitoring.