Longmont Swaps Flock Safety License-Plate Cameras for Axon Amid Privacy Concerns

In December, Longmont’s city council let a contract with Flock Safety—a company that runs automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs)—go to the wayside. Residents cheered, seeing it as a victory for privacy activists who had long opposed Flock’s nationwide camera network.

Just a few months later, the story flipped. In March, lawmakers voted to bring in a new vendor: Axon Enterprise. The city installed ALPRs on its streets without a public presentation that would have let citizens weigh the new system’s data ownership or security.

“Longmont’s rapid switch left me and others disappointed,” said Andrew Palmer, a resident and activist. Palmer and his neighbors had ridden the wave of a national backlash against Flock cameras, which scan license plates billions of times each month and store the data in a cloud database that police can search.

Law‑enforcement agencies argue ALPRs help solve crimes, locate stolen vehicles, and find missing people. Critics, however, warn that the technology creates a “dragnet” because queries can be made without a warrant and the cameras record vehicles driven by people who are not suspected of wrongdoing. The data can also be shared with federal immigration enforcement.

At least 56 municipalities have deactivated, canceled or rejected Flock contracts this year, according to the advocacy group DeFlock. In response, Flock announced policy changes last week that shorten data retention to seven days and require case codes for searches. The company also introduced auditing procedures, but many critics say the changes are inadequate.

Even in cities that have removed Flock cameras, surveillance often continues. Private companies sometimes install cameras on their premises, and some municipalities have had to cover uncollected Flock units with trash bags. In Longmont, the city’s own personnel had to blind cameras that Flock failed to remove.

The switch to Axon has raised similar concerns. Axon, a $48 billion company that also makes Tasers, has a long history of supplying law‑enforcement technology, including body cameras and a digital evidence platform. The Longmont police department cited its decades‑long relationship with Axon and the company’s “track record on privacy and ethics” as reasons for choosing it.

Axon’s ALPR system differs from Flock’s in a few ways. The Longmont contract, still pending finalization, will store data for 21 days instead of 30, and will not provide access to a vendor‑run national database. The city also added requirements for data protection, transparency and a one‑year evaluation.

However, privacy experts warn that Axon’s expansive infrastructure could pose a similar surveillance threat. The company’s AI platform, Fusus, can combine data from its cameras with other city‑owned or private visual feeds to create a comprehensive data ecosystem.

The issue is not limited to Longmont. Denver approved a switch from Flock to Axon in March, and Syracuse, New York, has also replaced Flock cameras with Axon units. In Wisconsin, cities like Oshkosh and Verona have struggled to have Flock remove cameras after canceling contracts.

The ACLU says the best way to protect drivers’ privacy is to avoid ALPRs entirely. When used, they recommend warrant requirements and strict limits on how long scanned data can be stored. New Hampshire, for example, caps retention at three minutes.

Federal lawmakers are considering bills that would regulate ALPR use, but no national law has yet been passed. In the meantime, many cities are establishing local review boards to oversee surveillance technology. More than two dozen municipalities, mainly in California and Massachusetts, already have such agreements.

In Longmont, Palmer plans to apply for a seat on a new technology advisory citizen board that the city council discussed in June. The board would advise elected officials, and advocates hope it will bring greater public scrutiny to future technology contracts.

Activists say they wish they had framed the debate not just around Flock but around broader data governance. “If we had sent that message more clearly, we might be in a different place,” said resident Shakeel Dalal.

The current situation in Longmont is that the city has approved a new ALPR vendor, Axon, after previously ending its contract with Flock. Residents and privacy advocates remain concerned about data ownership, retention, and the potential for expanded surveillance.

The next steps will involve the city council finalizing the Axon contract, establishing the advisory board, and monitoring how the new system operates in the coming year.