WESTFORD CENTER — As automatic license plate reading cameras manufactured by Flock Safety become more common across Massachusetts, many residents are raising concerns about the cameras being installed in town.
Automatic license plate readers are (ALPR) cameras which are designed to automatically capture images of passing vehicles and read their license plate numbers at high speeds. Cameras can also capture other details of the vehicle, such as its make and model and any bumper stickers that may be placed on it.
Concerns over such cameras coming to Westford were shared by residents during a Select Board meeting on July 28.
“There has been a lot of discussion about municipalities paying attention to Flock cameras,” Westford resident Wendy Gloyd said, who serves as co-vice chair of the town’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee. “A lot of that data (collected by the cameras) is not regulated. The data is used in many places. The data has gotten sold. As far as I know, Westford does not have those (cameras) yet — and I’m hoping that we work towards not having a resource that might bring harm to our community members.”
In an interview with The Westford Villager, Westford Police Chief Mark Chambers and Captain Michael Breault confirmed that the town does not use Flock cameras and does not plan to in the near future.
“Westford does not have Flock cameras, we don’t have any ALPRs anywhere in town,” Chambers said. “I can’t say never, but I will say there are no plans for them in the near future. We’d also have to find a funding source. I think about two years ago we actually had a conversation about bringing in Flock and we presented some of the information to the Select Board. We had a conversation and decided that it probably wasn’t going to be the greatest idea here in Westford.”
Operating in over 6,000 communities across 49 states through partnerships with over 5,000 law enforcement agencies, Flock is widely considered the market leader in the APLR industry.
The company describes itself as “a connected public safety platform,” with its cameras marketed as “vehicle intelligence” tools instead of standard traffic or security cameras.
According to a report from the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, at least 80 police departments across the state currently use Flock cameras, although the company does not disclose which law enforcement agencies it makes deals with.
Another ACLU report shows that over 25 cities and towns in Massachusetts have decided to end their contracts with Flock and disable the cameras, following objections from local leaders and residents or unresolved issues with the company itself.
Many police departments across Massachusetts and the U.S. have pointed to positive results in identifying criminals and reducing crime through the use of Flock cameras.
“Flock cameras have been an amazing investigative tool, even in our area, with helping solve robberies,” Chambers said. “If there’s proper oversight, it’s probably one of the most game-changing tools that’s come out in the past, you know, 15 years for us.”
Chambers argues the technology would provide an unprecedented ability to track and locate suspects and monitor repeat offenders.
“Oftentimes we’ll get a vehicle description, but we won’t get a plate,” Chambers said. “So even if we know it’s just a white four-door sedan, it would be able to narrow it down to 15 or 20 cars. We’d be able to run all those plates to see if there’s any connection. That gives you an investigative avenue that you normally wouldn’t have been able to have. We understand what the concerns are, but I think coming from public safety, it would be hard for me not to advocate for license plate readers because I do think that they are an incredibly useful tool.”
While Chambers reiterated that he doesn’t believe there is need for Flock cameras in Westford at the moment, due to the town’s low crime rates, he said there is always a possibility for a change in the future — pointing to a new housing development on Route 110 (Littleton Road) as a potential for a change in population and demographics of the town which he argues could change the crime rate.
“You know, if our demographics change, if our crime statistics start to change, that’s going to dramatically impact the traffic down on 110,” Chambers said. “It could potentially impact our crime rates down on 110 and other areas of the community. So I can’t say never (to Flock cameras). I think it would be incredibly beneficial (for the cameras) to be down on 110 — at the entry and exit points — and then probably Boston Road or Cornerstone Square. But I don’t see the same necessity for a Flock camera on Main Street out in front of Town Hall.”
However, many critics argue that Flock cameras serve little to no value in identifying criminals and solving crimes. Rather, they argue the cameras are used as a mass surveillance tool that violates the privacy of individuals who are not suspected of committing crimes, by recording their vehicles and license plates, tracking their location and making a detailed record of places they have traveled.
Critics also argue that the cameras’ ability to allow law enforcement agencies to request or share information with other agencies puts their personal data in jeopardy and increases the risk of their data being sold to private corporations. They point to a lack of local oversight by police departments and instances of poor communication between municipal leaders and Flock technicians regarding the placement and activation of cameras as weak points for the cameras’ data protection and reliability, as well as their trust in the company’s ethics.
The use of data collected by Flock cameras by federal officials — such U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — have also been a major contention point for critics of the technology. They argue the cameras’ data sharing system allows ICE agents to extract suspects’ location data without local permission or a judicial warrant, while also bypassing local sanctuary protections.
In addition to these criticisms, Flock cameras were also the subject of a recent controversy in New Bedford, where a police officer was accused of using Flock cameras to track and follow her ex-girlfriend, once again bringing the ethics of the cameras to light. The incident prompted city officials to temporarily shut down all Flock cameras within New Bedford.
When asked to address the criticism and concerns many residents have regarding Flock cameras, Chambers said “it has been abused, we can’t say that it hasn’t been abused here in Massachusetts. We understand what the concerns are. That also played into our decision not to move forward with it a year and a half, two years ago. A lot of it just comes down to making sure you have legal guidance before you sign your master service agreement, because that really specifies who owns the data — what you can do with it — and everything else.”
He added that acknowledging the concerns of Westford residents plays a major role in the town’s police department.
“I think we do a pretty good job of maintaining our reputation within the community and engaging with the community,” Chambers said. “The police department doesn’t want the black eye for the six or eight times a year that we would use it. We wouldn’t want to give up any of the goodwill that we’ve been able to generate within the community by betraying any trust or anything like that.”
Two of Westford’s neighbors — Groton and Littleton — were also among the communities who ended or paused their contracts with Flock.
On Aug. 31, Groton town officials released a statement in which they announced that the town will terminate its contract with Flock, citing residents’ concerns about privacy, transparency and oversight. Although the town will no longer use Flock cameras, town officials said a Police Camera Working Group will continue reviewing the technology and plans to present a permanent recommendation to voters at the Spring 2027 Town Meeting.
Meanwhile, in Littleton, Flock cameras were installed throughout March and April as a tool to assist the police department. However, following safety and cybersecurity concerns from residents, the cameras were deactivated on May 12 following a vote to reduce the Littleton police budget at the May 5 town meeting.
Despite the initial assumption by town officials that the cameras were no longer in use, Littleton police later discovered they had been reactivated by Flock technicians as a result of a communication error between the technicians and town officials. Police then ordered the cameras to be shut down, disabled access to the system and confirmed that data collection ended on Aug. 1.
Since Aug. 31, Littleton town officials are moving forward with removing the cameras and ending their contract with Flock.
“Public safety will always be a priority for this department, but it must be pursued in partnership with the community we serve, not around it,” Littleton Police Chief Douglas Landry said in a statement on Aug. 4. “We recognize this shortfall and we are committed to doing better.”
Breault said that while he acknowledges the concerns many residents have with Flock cameras — especially given the recent incidents in Littleton and New Bedford — he said those views they hold can change through personal experiences.
“You have residents saying (the cameras) are an infringement on constitutional rights,” Breault said. “Well, you take that same resident that’s up there speaking (at town meeting) on that behalf and all of a sudden, their house gets broken into and their tune may change. When I grew up, I remember pulling into my driveway and there was a car that I didn’t know in my driveway. They were breaking into my house. We didn’t know the plate on it, but we knew it was a white Buick LeSabre. Now, that crime may have been solved with something like that (Flock) technology, so my personal experiences lead me to believe that a technology like Flock is benefiting public safety.”
