Anderson Council Member Darin Hale Raises Concerns Over FLOCK Safety Cameras
- Rex Ballard
- 4 hours ago
- 2 min read
Effectiveness vs. Privacy, Data Control, and Constitutional Limits
Recently, Shasta Unfiltered published a series of articles regarding the City of Redding and Shasta County's use of FLOCK Safety ALPR cameras. The articles sparked both praise for crime-solving potential and debate over surveillance risks. In a recent conversation, Anderson City Councilmember Darin Hale provided updated local insights into the City of Anderson’s use of the surveillance technology.
Hale confirmed the City of Anderson deployment of the cameras around 2019–2020 and successes in car thefts, drug/human trafficking, and other cases. He initially supported the tech but now urges caution. He now feels that the use of FLOCK should be eliminated in the City of Anderson until stronger legislation ensures better data control measures that restrict access and prevent misuse.
Anderson Context
The city has an estimated 10–11 cameras. He was surprised to learn that a couple of these cameras are outside of the Anderson city limits. He has been assured that the appropriate interagency agreements are in place to allow this. The FLOCK system has the ability to be tied into a county-wide network (Sheriff’s ~24 cameras, $550k/5-year contract) and the nationwide network of FLOCK cameras. See our earlier reporting on Shasta County’s FLOCK activation and public concerns.
Broader Pushback
Hale’s concerns echo a nationwide trend. Multiple jurisdictions have suspended, terminated, or declined to renew FLOCK contracts amid data-sharing scandals, configuration errors allowing unauthorized access, federal/immigration data use fears, and privacy lawsuits. Confirmed examples include:
Los Angeles (LAPD): In July 2026, suspended use of 138 FLOCK cameras — the largest single withdrawal to date — citing privacy issues, data control, and potential cybersecurity risks. The department is renegotiating terms.
Oxnard, CA: Suspended fixed-position ALPR operations in late February 2026 after discovering vendor configuration problems and unauthorized data access.
Ventura, CA: Changed procedures and conducted audits after a FLOCK configuration error allowed out-of-state agencies to query local data despite California-only restrictions. The city operates 23 cameras.
Mountain View, CA: Turned off its 30 cameras in February 2026 after federal and state agencies accessed data in violation of city policy; later terminated the contract.
Santa Cruz, CA: Voted to end its contract in January 2026 (less than two years after starting) after learning local data was shared on FLOCK’s national network without authorization.
Additional notable opt-outs/pauses (2025–2026):
Berkeley, CA
Windsor, CT
Austin, TX; Syracuse, NY; Evanston, IL; Oak Park, IL; Scarsdale, NY; Sedona, AZ; and others (at least 30–50 localities reported since early 2025).
Many cancellations stem from:
Unintended national/federal data sharing (including ICE/CBP access concerns).
Vendor errors violating local agreements.
Misuse incidents (officers querying data for personal reasons).
Mounting lawsuits and public pressure from groups like the ACLU and DeFlock.
Multiple public watchdog groups have mobilized with apps such as DeFLOCK. Here in Shasta County, a citizen has set up a website shastacountyalpr.com to identify the location of FLOCK cameras. Recently, Flock CEO Garrett Langley labeled activists such as these as "terrorists". He now says he regrets the use of those words.
Watch:
Shasta Unfiltered will continue monitoring. Link to our prior FLOCK articles for full background. Reader submissions encouraged.
