Flock Cameras in Watertown, Massachusetts

The short version

Watertown, Massachusetts canceled its Flock Safety license plate reader camera contract in January 2026 before any city-contracted cameras were installed.

Watertown News reported that the city had signed a contract the previous year with plans to install eight Flock cameras. City Manager George Proakis announced at the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting that Watertown would end the contract.

The cancellation followed a public Tech Talk where residents questioned how license plate data could be used outside Watertown, who could access it, and whether federal agencies could reach the data.

What Watertown approved

Watertown News reported that the Police Department had received approval for funding to install eight Flock cameras in town.

At the January 21, 2026 Tech Talk, Police Chief Justin Hanrahan said the plan was to install eight cameras on main thoroughfares in Watertown.

Councilor Tony Palomba told attendees the City Council had not properly vetted the camera proposal when it came through budget hearings. He said the council did not look carefully enough at the proposal to pay more than $24,000 per year under the contract.

Why residents objected

Watertown News reported that the biggest resident concerns were how collected images would be used outside Watertown and who would have access to them.

Residents worried the data could be used by federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Others raised concerns about data being used in other states for activity legal in Massachusetts but illegal elsewhere, such as abortion or marijuana use.

The article also said residents raised concerns about any privately held police data, not only Flock data. That matters because the Watertown fight was not only about one vendor. It was about whether public-safety technology could outgrow local control.

The ACLU pressure point

Watertown News reported that the ACLU of Massachusetts contacted Watertown and other communities about Flock sharing information with law enforcement outside Massachusetts and at the federal level.

The same reporting said Watertown officials began drafting a policy that would limit access to Massachusetts law enforcement agencies and require proof that requested data would be used in an ongoing criminal investigation.

That draft policy is the key procurement lesson. If a city needs a new policy after residents ask who can access the data, the better move is to slow down before installation.

What city officials said

Proakis told the City Council he had faith in how Watertown Police managed policies and data, but he could not vouch for an outside company at that level.

He said the best move was to end the Flock relationship, reset the question, and have a broader conversation with the council about when and how police should use data.

He also said the cameras could have investigative value. Watertown News reported that Flock cameras in other communities had helped Watertown cases, including a home invasion investigation and a church donation theft investigation.

Why cancellation before installation matters

Watertown is different from cities that canceled after cameras were already live. None of the city-contracted cameras had been installed, according to Proakis.

That made the exit cleaner. The city still had to work through procurement steps to get out of the contract, but it avoided the harder public-trust problem of removing an operating surveillance system after residents had already lost confidence.

For other cities, Watertown shows why Flock review should happen before budget approval becomes contract approval. Camera count, annual cost, location rules, sharing settings, retention, audit logs, access limits, and termination rights should be public before the purchase is treated as routine.

What other councils should copy

A city considering Flock should hold a public technology hearing before signing, not after residents discover the contract. The hearing should separate police benefits from data-governance questions.

Officials should publish the order form, annual price, proposed camera locations, written policy, retention period, outside-agency access rules, federal-access limits, audit process, and exact termination language.

If the city cannot clearly explain who can search the data and how outside access is blocked or approved, the contract is not ready. Watertown's lesson is simple: it is cheaper to cancel before installation than to rebuild trust after residents believe the city skipped the real debate.

The bottom line

Watertown canceled its Flock contract because the privacy and outside-access questions became bigger than the planned eight-camera rollout.

City officials did not say license plate readers could never help police. They said the city needed a reset before handing sensitive vehicle-location data to a system residents did not trust.

That makes Watertown a useful warning for every city council: public trust is part of the purchase. If the contract cannot survive a room full of basic questions, it should not survive the vote.

Sources used

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/

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, Council Roundup: Councilor Elected Head of Statewide Board, DPW Equipment Funded, Contracts Approved, February 5, 2026: https://www.watertownmanews.com/2026/02/05/council-roundup-councilor-elected-head-of-statewide-board-dpw-equipment-funded-contracts-approved/

Flock Safety, License Plate Reader Policy: https://www.flocksafety.com/legal/lpr-policy

Flock Safety, Trust Center: https://www.flocksafety.com/trust