Flock Cameras in Cambridge, Massachusetts

The short version

Cambridge, Massachusetts terminated its Flock Safety automatic license plate reader contract after the city said two cameras were installed by Flock technicians in late November 2025 without the city's awareness.

The city's own statement says 16 Flock ALPRs had already been deactivated and removed in late October 2025. Cambridge said the two later cameras followed an outstanding work order that should have been canceled when the city deactivated the cameras and account.

That makes Cambridge different from a normal privacy debate. This was not only about whether ALPR cameras are useful. It was about whether the city still had control after it had decided to stop the deployment.

What Cambridge said happened

On December 10, 2025, Cambridge posted a city statement titled Statement on the Flock Safety ALPR Contract Termination. The statement said the Police Department, Law Department, IT Department, and City Manager's Office had met internally and with Flock Safety about City Council and community concerns, data privacy, security, and Cambridge remaining a welcoming and safe city.

The city said that in late October 2025, 16 Flock ALPRs deployed in the community were deactivated and removed by the city. Then, according to Cambridge, two cameras were installed by Flock technicians in late November without the city's awareness.

Cambridge called that a material breach of trust and the agreement. The city said it was terminating the contract with Flock Safety and that the two cameras had also been removed.

Why the timing mattered

The timing is the whole story. Cambridge had already shut down the local deployment and account, at least according to the city's public statement. The later installation was tied to a work order the city said should have been canceled.

That is the risk other cities should notice. A council vote, staff decision, or policy pause is only as strong as the operational process behind it. If work orders, vendor access, deployment schedules, and account status are not closed cleanly, the policy decision can get ahead of the actual system.

For local governments, the lesson is boring but important. Turning cameras off should come with a written shutdown checklist, removed equipment, disabled user access, canceled work orders, and a vendor confirmation that no further installation or service work is authorized.

What WCVB reported

WCVB reported on December 12, 2025 that Cambridge severed ties with Flock Safety after two ALPR cameras were installed in late November without officials being aware of them.

The station reported that Cambridge City Council had voted in late October 2025 to end its agreement with Flock Safety for the license plate readers, and that 16 Flock ALPRs deployed in the community were deactivated and removed.

WCVB also reported Flock's broader response through a company spokesperson: nearly 100 law enforcement agencies across Massachusetts used Flock Safety technology, each customer owns and controls its data, customers decide whether and with whom to share it, and data is deleted by default after 30 days unless local law or policy requires something else.

The privacy issue behind the contract issue

Cambridge did not frame the termination only as a paperwork problem. Its statement connected the contract dispute to community concerns about ALPRs, data privacy and security, and the strained relationship between local governments and federal law enforcement.

That language matters because Cambridge sits inside the same Massachusetts regional debate that later reached Watertown. Watertown News reported in January 2026 that the ACLU of Massachusetts had contacted Watertown and other communities with concerns that typical Flock contract language could allow data sharing with law enforcement agencies around the country and at the federal level.

Watertown News also reported that Watertown officials discussed drafting policy language to limit access to Massachusetts law enforcement agencies that could show the data would be used in an ongoing criminal investigation. Cambridge's cancellation became part of that regional cautionary tale.

What Flock says about control

Flock's public trust materials say customers control their own data, agencies choose whether to share information through a broader network, and every search is recorded and tied to a specific user. Its current LPR policy says customer LPR data is hard deleted on a rolling 30-day basis by default unless a different schedule is required by a customer's law or policy.

Those are important safeguards, but Cambridge shows why city oversight has to include more than the search box. Data controls, audit logs, and retention rules do not answer every deployment question.

A city also has to control installation authority, work-order cancellation, account deactivation, physical removal, and vendor access. If the city cannot prove those pieces are closed, residents may not trust the rest of the system.

What other cities should ask before signing

Before approving Flock cameras, a city should ask who has authority to create, change, or cancel installation work orders. It should ask what happens when council pauses a program, ends a pilot, or directs staff to remove cameras.

The contract should also say how the city confirms equipment removal, who receives vendor deployment notices, how account access is disabled, and what written proof the vendor must provide after shutdown.

Those details sound procedural until they fail. Cambridge's public statement is useful because it shows that the hard part of ALPR governance is not only deciding whether cameras belong in town. It is making sure the system obeys the decision after the meeting ends.

The bottom line

Cambridge's Flock camera story is a control story. The city did not merely object to a theoretical privacy risk. It said cameras were installed after the city had already deactivated and removed the existing deployment.

For residents, that confirmed the worry that local governments can lose practical control of surveillance technology once the vendor workflow is moving. For city councils, it creates a simple test.

If a city cannot explain exactly who can install, activate, search, share, audit, and remove Flock cameras, it is not ready to approve them.

Sources used

City of Cambridge, Statement on the Flock Safety ALPR Contract Termination, December 10, 2025: https://www.cambridgema.gov/news/2025/12/statementontheflocksafetyalprcontracttermination

WCVB, Cambridge cuts ties with Flock Safety after 2 unauthorized license plate cameras installed, December 12, 2025: https://www.wcvb.com/article/cambridge-ends-flock-safety-contract/69711475

Watertown News, Residents Express Concerns About Using Flock License Plate Reading Cameras in Watertown, January 22, 2026: https://www.watertownmanews.com/2026/01/22/residents-express-concerns-about-using-flock-license-plate-reading-cameras-in-watertown/

Watertown News, Watertown Cancelling Contract for Flock License Plate Reading Cameras, January 28, 2026: https://www.watertownmanews.com/2026/01/28/watertown-cancelling-contract-for-flock-license-plate-reading-cameras/

Flock Safety, Privacy, Data & Civil Liberties Policies: https://www.flocksafety.com/trust

Flock Safety, License Plate Reader Policy, last updated June 30, 2026: https://www.flocksafety.com/legal/lpr-policy