The One Thing Thomas Massie and Bernie Sanders Agree On

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie and far-left Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders are about as far apart politically as two politicians can be. However, both men have expressed concern about the rapid proliferation of Flock cameras – an issue that has quietly become a major factor in key races this midterm cycle.

But what exactly are Flock cameras, and why are they so divisive?

Flock cameras, made by the company Flock Safety, are billed as automated license plate readers that capture vehicle details and build searchable travel logs for law enforcement and private communities. Flock Safety says that it currently has “120,000 cameras in 49 states that capture 20 billion license plates a month – along with dents, bumper stickers and other identifying features,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Many police departments are strong supporters of Flock cameras, arguing that they are a valuable and cost-effective way to catch criminals and identify perpetrators in crimes like hit-and-run accidents. The cameras allow law enforcement to monitor the streets 24/7 in a way that human officers simply cannot.

Police in Providence, Rhode Island, used the system with stunning success following a deadly shooting at Brown University in December 2025. As Fortune magazine reports, the police department used “just a tip describing a gray Nissan with Florida plates,” to ultimately catch the suspect by finding the same car 14 times in its system.

Flock’s May 2026 survey of 700 law enforcement agencies found that its cameras “supported more than 1 million investigations, assisted in solving 20% of cleared cases, helped locate more than 10,000 missing persons, and contributed significantly to stolen vehicle recoveries across the country.”

But the technology is not without its detractors – including those who cite abuses by law enforcement and concerns about a growing Big Brother surveillance state.

In the same article, Fortune highlighted a Florida police officer who used the network to stalk his “estranged wife,” logging “more than 700 unauthorized inquiries into her vehicle between September 2024 and June 2026.”

He has since been arrested, but similar cases point to a disturbing pattern of abuse by some law enforcement personnel.

Authorities also arrested a Kentucky police officer who used the database more than 2,000 times to track and then harass the mother of his child, CNN reported.

Even officers lawfully using the database have made mistakes, misidentifying innocent suspects or misreading license plate numbers, according to the New York Post.

“In Ohio, a man is suing his city after police pulled him over because they believed him to be driving a car with stolen plates based on Flock camera data,” the Post reported. “That turned out to be untrue, but not before police released K-9s on him in a move his attorneys call ‘unlawful excessive force.’”

Critics have also identified security vulnerabilities. Cybersecurity expert Benn Jordan found a way to hack into the system and livestream a video of one Flock camera pointed at a park.

In a chilling story reported in the Wall Street Journal, “Atlanta-area resident Jason Hunyar… said he became alarmed about Flock after seeing Jordan’s video exposing the live feed. Hunyar instantly recognized the suburban park where he and his wife walked when she was pregnant and realized his son was in Flock’s database before he was even born.”

This highlights another pressing concern about the cameras: while initially sold as “license plate readers,” many now monitor public parks and walking or biking trails. Some Flock cameras are even pointed at playgrounds, creating anxiety about child privacy among parents.

Flock officials say that they are working to fix vulnerabilities in the system. They have added AI tools to flag database abuses and claim they fixed the glitches that allowed Jordan to hack into the system and broadcast the video. The company is also limiting access to each department’s database by external agencies and generally shortening how long data is stored to seven days from the previous 30 days.

Still, some communities are moving away from the cameras entirely. “At least 56 cities and towns have deactivated, rejected, or canceled Flock contracts in 2026 alone,” Newsweek reported. The company argues it is signing more contracts, however. Flock currently has about 5,000 contracts with law enforcement agencies.

Yet that does not negate the real pushback Flock is facing. There have been rallies against the cameras in 44 states and “[c]itizens have attacked cameras with shotguns, spray paint and saws,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Critics also point to disturbing similarities between Flock cameras and the widespread surveillance system deployed in China. The communist country has 700 million cameras, roughly one for every two people, and uses them to ascribe a “social credit score” to citizens. Individuals without a sufficiently high score can be banned from purchasing train tickets or flights.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) recently called for an investigation into Flock Safety and its use of AI tools. President Trump said the controversial company is “under review” by his administration and he is considering both the “pros and cons.”

Massie has gone even further, saying that he plans to introduce legislation prohibiting federal funding for police departments that deploy Flock or similar surveillance systems. Fellow Republican Congressman Tim Burchett (TN) has likewise introduced a bill that would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing, operating, or accessing automated surveillance technologies, including license plate readers.

Massie and Burchett have found an unlikely ideological ally in Senator Sanders, who has pledged to introduce legislation to "stop Flock" and "stop AI mass surveillance." Other Democrats at the federal and state levels have also called for localities to cancel their Flock contracts.

Notably, Republican opposition to Flock cameras largely stems from personal privacy concerns, while Democrats are more worried about things like federal immigration authorities using the cameras to arrest and deport illegal aliens.

The debate over Flock cameras is also showing up in midterm battles. In the hotly contested Michigan Senate race, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed attacked his opponent, Republican Mike Rogers, for supporting cameras “watching your every move to collect information about you without you even noticing.”

Rogers’ campaign responded by saying that he “vehemently opposes unchecked use of Flock cameras to track law-abiding citizens. Security and liberty aren’t enemies. Good government protects both.”

Rogers, a former FBI agent and chair of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, may be correct. Much like the ShotSpotter gun detection technology, surveillance tools can serve a useful function for catching criminals and aiding victims – with stringent protections for individual liberties.

But the reality is that many Americans simply don’t want to be constantly monitored by a Big Tech company working with police departments. While Flock cameras might help catch criminals, moms and dads don’t want to see cameras on every street corner knowing that a stranger could be on the other end watching their kids.

Flock says it is working to rein in vulnerabilities and the potential for abuse in its systems, and stresses the company’s record of success. But that may not be enough to stop the growing bipartisan political backlash.