Cabry Lueker graduated from Staples High School in 2024. He studies cconomics at Boston University, and is interested in politics, finance, travel and current events.
He feels passionately about our right to privacy. Cabry writes:
In one month, outside law-enforcement agencies used the generic label “Investigation” in 54,796 searches of data collected by Westport’s license-plate cameras. Most Westport residents probably had no idea those searches were happening.
Cabry Lueker
Every day, most of us willingly trade some privacy for convenience. We install Ring doorbells. We carry phones that know everywhere we have been. We let Google Maps route us to our destinations, while our activity is used to personalize advertisements.
However, there is one form of surveillance in our town that we never meaningfully agreed to: having our movements recorded whenever we drive here.
The Westport Police Department maintains 29 Automatic License Plate Recognition cameras at undisclosed locations throughout town. Twenty are operated through Flock Safety.
More than 436,000 plate detections were recorded by Westport’s Flock cameras in the last 30 days, according to the department’s Flock Transparency Portal. That is more than 14,500 detections per day. The cameras record passing vehicles, regardless of whether their occupants are suspected of any crime.
The “Transparency Portal,” automatically generated by Flock Safety, includes statistics about the system, and a file listing the previous 30 days of searches. But officers’ identities are hidden, case numbers are absent, search results are undisclosed, and many explanations are as vague as “Investigation,” “INV” or “File 1.”
Westport Police told WFSB earlier this year that all users are trained, the system contains guardrails, and a supervisor audits searches twice a month. The department said those audits had found no improper use.
But it is effectively asking residents to accept its conclusion while withholding the information needed to verify it independently. Transparency should mean more than assuring the public that internal safeguards are working.
Flock license plate reader.
Some may say that “it’s just a license plate.” It is not. The cameras record a vehicle’s description, exact location, date and time. Police can then connect a plate to its registered owner through government databases. Collected repeatedly, this information can reveal significant details about a person’s movements.
The larger issue is that the data does not remain solely within Westport’s control. In October 2025, outside agencies used the label “Investigation” in 54,796 searches of Westport camera records. The Louisville Metro Police Department was the most frequent outside user, followed by agencies in Florida and Texas. Immigration- or ICE-related language appeared in at least 11 searches the following month.
Westport Police say they can restrict individual agencies, and do not share information with ICE. However, these records demonstrate how difficult it is to control access once a local surveillance system becomes part of a national network. The Transparency Portal also does not show outside-agency searches, further calling the effectiveness of these guardrails into question.
That concern is reinforced by Westport’s current audit. More than 80% of local searches were configured to include at least 92 agency networks, while almost 40% included at least 251. Two searches included more than 6,000. The department may own the data, but ownership is not the same as control.
License plate recognition cameras can automatically notify authorities of suspected vehicles.
Nationwide, these issues are even more apparent because of the rapid expansion of Flock Safety and other ALPR systems. DeFlock, a crowdsourced organization that maps these cameras, has identified more than 120,000 nationwide.
Last year, a Texas sheriff’s office searched a nationwide network of more than 83,000 Flock cameras while trying to locate a woman who had reportedly obtained an abortion, including in states where abortion was legal. Authorities said her family feared for her safety, but the case still showed how easily the network can be used for controversial purposes far beyond locating stolen vehicles.
Misuse by individual officers is also well documented. The Institute for Justice identified at least 28 reported cases in which officers allegedly used ALPR systems to monitor current or former romantic partners or other romantic interests. In many cases, the conduct was discovered only after the person being tracked complained. In other words, internal safeguards did not prevent the searches.
Even when no one deliberately abuses the system, errors can have serious consequences. A separate Institute for Justice review identified at least 27 cases in which innocent motorists were stopped, detained or jailed because of incorrect information connected to ALPR systems. In nearly 2/3 of those cases, officers reportedly pointed guns at innocent people before discovering the error.
Earlier this year in Arkansas, a Flock camera misread a plate, and officers detained a couple at gunpoint while their 6-week-old baby was in the back seat. In Florida, an innocent driver was jailed for 13 days after police incorrectly connected their vehicle to an accident.
According to Flock marketing materials cited by the Institute for Justice, its cameras correctly capture 93 out of every 100 plates while processing more than 20 billion plate readings each month. An inaccurate reading does not automatically lead to a wrongful stop, but at that scale even a small failure rate can create serious risks.
I understand that Flock cameras have helped Westport Police recover stolen vehicles and a firearm, as highlighted in the “Success Stories” section of its Transparency Portal. There is no doubt that Flock can be a useful investigative tool.
I also deeply respect the work that the Westport Police Department does on a daily basis. However, that does not mean it is immune from criticism or public input. Occasional successes do not justify recording everyone. We must draw the line somewhere.
Some will argue that stricter policies, additional audits or greater transparency are enough. They are not. The problem is not simply a lack of rules. It is the system that Flock and participating police departments have created.
Flock’s value comes from connecting thousands of cameras and agencies into a single searchable network. Policies may reduce the risks, but they cannot eliminate the underlying danger of placing local driving data into a privately operated, multi-agency system — especially in a rapidly shifting federal landscape.
Windsor and Killingworth have already decided that the risks outweigh the benefits. They have terminated their Flock ALPR programs, alongside Los Angeles, Austin, Denver, Cambridge and a growing list of communities.
Westport should be next.
(Last September, Westport Police Chief David Farrell responded to requests for information about the town’s oversight of Flock. Click here for that story.)
(Our “06880” Opinion pages are open to everyone. Send submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support this hyper-local blog, please click here. Thank you!)
Flock cameras, especially without warning are an extreme over reach by town administration. This is NOT a Soviet gulag! STOP!
This is a well-articulated argument. Thank you for posting the facts Cabry.
Shouldn’t we be able to FOIA the locations?
Also, was this ever presented as a specific budget item in the WPD annual requests?
Reminiscent of when I was on RTM and they wanted Tazers. WPD said they were to prevent the escalation of violence. So I asked when the last time had been that an officer had fired a shot “in anger” in Town, and whoever spoke for the police at the time could not remember, it had been that long. So, I said, the Tazers would actually escalate violence.
The problem is that, presumably Town boards, but especially RTM, can’t go much beyond “let’s trust the experts – they’ll never steer us wrong.” And there are what could be fairly called police fetishists (like Dick Lowenstein) who love this stuff.
The end of the Tazer story was that I pretty much single-handedly stopped them, but as soon as I stepped down from RTM, Al Fiori brought it back and the rubber stampers did their thing. IIRC, the first thing Tazered was a fox on one of the boat docks.
Give a man a hammer and he’ll find something to nail.
Cell phones generate location data too . Allstate has Drivewise that also tracks speed, hard braking, acceleration, and time of day you drive. One doesn’t need to use Drivewise, but Allstate lowers your insurance rate if you use it. Even if Westport is successful in eliminating any type of tracking, you better shut down your cell phones when you leave your home.
Useless strawman here. Cell phone location data generally requires a search warrant which, as I’m sure you are aware, requires probable cause to be granted
Tennessee, Texas, Florida were the states mentioned here. What could they possibly have in common? Oh, right. Follow the money. “Residents” of those states should take care how much they leave their registered vehicles in plain sight over here.
This is a very well written article by this young man, Cabry, and thought-provoking. This info regarding locations can be FOIA’d. There is no reason it should be secret and kept from Westport citizens any more than where a traffic light is located should be.
What was the original rationale for having the readers installed?
In the end, if you’re not committing crimes, you have nothing to be concerned about.
Serious police state attitude there, Mark. And people wouldn’t worry about being shot by the police if they just did like they were told, right?
@Kristan – thank you for confirming that.
How many RING doorbells are there in Westport? I bet you can’t go into any neighborhood in Westport without being photographed.
Very interesting, if not terrifying. I guess you could add to it the new speed cameras in many towns, such as Fairfield.
There is NO safety in accepting tracking devices in a free Society. Cabry Lueker’s comments are spot on! When Society becomes accepting of tracking as second nature, we take the first steps towards a “Big Brother is Watching” acceptance. We are no longer free when that happens. Legislate stronger gun control laws at both State & Federal levels and enforce them to give Society a level of safety & freedom back in the way of life we once knew. Then have our Courts administer appropriate punishments for lawbreakers to send the message that Society doesn’t accept various forms of unacceptable/deviant, lawless behaviors and stick to it, instead of sending these people back on the streets to continually repeat unacceptable, Lawbreaking acts. This “bail-less”, “slap-on-the-hand” judgements are clearly not working for nearly a generation, now. That’s why we are, where we are today. Enough, is enough. All of us are paying the price for this.
Very good article. I support the police 1000% and all the work that they do and sacrifices that they make. I have several in my family.
Yesterday, a representative from Beacon Falls was on 99.1 WPLR Chaz and AJ in the Morning and was trying to defend the speed cameras. At first he said that they were not a “money grab” but then later knew exactly down to the cent the amount of money that came in. He also mentioned that they are to “modify behavior” which brought much attention! Chaz asked if he would like to take questions from the listeners and he declined to take any questions or comments. He mentioned that in the statute there has to be 2 sets of signs letting you know that you are first approaching and then entering the speed zone but on the old route 8, that he called Main Street, there have been none since the cameras were put up. This morning the topic came up again and Chaz floated the question of, if the signs were not installed and thousands of people were ticketed, then when the signs finally are installed, are all of those people who were ticketed without knowledge of the zone going to be refunded their ticket cost? He also said this morning that yesterday the representative called back and was upset that the interview did not go the way he planned. Yesterday, the representative also said that yes, the ticket does not go against your insurance or license but if the ticket(s) are not paid then you are sent to collections and your credit can be harmed. What part of your safety does this cover?
It sounds like 1984.
As typical 95% of the statement talks about the negatives with accusations, vague statements and certainly some troubling facts. What’s missing is a balanced statement of successes of the system and the crimes either solved or prevented by the system. He does admit that with cell phones, Easy Pass, google, alexa-like assistants, public WiFi, etc. our expectation of privacy has been severely undermined aside from Flock. I too am troubled by this erosion of privacy and agree we must be vigilant however we are in a very dangerous era here in America and no community is exempt from danger. I believe the old saying the good of the many sometimes outweigh the good of the few but would add “with guardrails”. Having advocated for 15 years for SROs in all our schools (finally achieved recently) I was never a fan of guns in schools but our kids outweighed my fear of potential downside. We just made sure the program was implemented appropriately and the candidates for SRO fully trained and vetted. That program has been extremely successful and has potentially saved lives. The only thing evil needs is for good people to do nothing. Let’s be realistic. Utopia is far removed from today’s reality. That said I am appreciative of bringing the challenges of the system to light.
Well written article, and good points all around. I am happy to give our police any tools back necessary to serve and protect the residents of Westport, and our guests.
The stealing of car epidemic, and lack of legal accountability on both minors and adults committing these crimes is scary.
I am sure there is a positive way to incorporate license plate readers to benefit law enforcement without invading ones privacy.
In the end, every time we open our phones, or do something online, our privacy is over.
Ask the police – the vast majority of car thefts (90% or more) are because people leave keys and fobs in their cars. We’re going to infringe on the privacy of everyone, because some people don’t use good sense?
Cabry is right on target. Westport PD has a long track record of expanding surveillance first and asking for permission never. They did it with the COVID drones, and they’re doing it again with these Flock cameras that log every plate in town and feed a national network outside agencies search tens of thousands of times a month under the blank check of “Investigation.”
Chief David Farrell is running the system now and defending the status quo. Former Chief Foti Koskinas helped create the landscape that made this possible in the first place. Between the two of them, residents were never given a real say before their daily movements became searchable data shared far beyond Westport.
“It’s just a license plate” is the same soft sell they used for the drones. Collect it long enough and you have a detailed map of where people live, work, and move. The Soviets would have salivated over a system like this. Give them an inch and they take a mile; every single time.
Windsor and Killingworth already killed their Flock contracts. Westport should follow. The occasional recovered car does not justify turning the entire town into a permanent tracking grid under the watch of leadership that keeps expanding the net.
The cops love this technology. Makes it easier to stalk their ex wives