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!)
