Privacy News

Residents oppose Flock

While some residents indicated their trust for the Beverly Police Department, many of these same residents highlighted their distrust of Flock. Multiple calls on the city to end the Flock contract were met with clapping and cheering. 

Concern about law enforcement agencies from outside of Massachusetts accessing Beverly’s data was widespread. Multiple residents worried about giving data to agencies that do not share their values. References to concerns about ICE elicited sounds of approval from the crowd. The room also erupted in applause when a resident expressed concern for patients who must drive past a Flock camera aimed at the Cummings Center entrance, while seeking gender affirming care or reproductive care.

The ACLU of Massachusetts backs up these citizen concerns: 

“Police in Texas, Florida, and thousands of departments nationwide can track Massachusetts drivers in real-time — without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. . . . police across the state are collecting detailed information about the locations of Massachusetts drivers and sharing that information with . . . states that have passed laws banning abortion and gender-affirming healthcare for minors, and laws requiring police to conduct civil immigration enforcement operations.”

Constitutional protections

While license plate readers may be useful for solving crimes, it is a violation of our civil liberties for government officials to access our data and infringe upon our privacy without a warrant. 

Multiple residents at Tuesday's meeting highlighted recent court cases, Carpenter v. United States (2018, Supreme Court of the United States) and Commonwealth v. McCarthy (2020, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court). Both cases involved location data (cell site location information, CSLI) — similar to the data collected by ALPRs. 

Here are some relevant excerpts from those rulings:

"An individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in the CSLI corresponding to his cell phone number and law enforcement must generally get a warrant to access that information." (from the opinion announcement in Carpenter v. United States)

“[W]e hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through CSLI.” (from the opinion in Carpenter v. United States)

"With enough cameras in enough locations, the historic location data from an ALPR system in Massachusetts would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and would constitute a search for constitutional purposes." (from the opinion in Commonwealth v. McCarthy)

Councilors call for an alternative

City Councilors shared concerns as well. Councilor At Large Keith Sonia stated that he would support ending the contract with Flock and finding instead a company that addresses the public's concerns about data privacy. Ward 5 Councilor Kathleen Feldman wondered about collaboration with other communities. Since we went into this together, we could come out of this together, she noted.

Further resources

To learn more, including links to ACLU articles, visit tinyurl.com/BevFlock.

To view the April 21, 2026, 6pm meeting, watch the recording on BevCam.

Email Beverly Social Justice Book Club at hello@bevsjbookclub.org with questions.