AZ Surveillance Cameras Track Me 243 Times in One City: What I Found in My Flock File
A mosaic of my life—recorded and kept without my consent. And the errors I caught.
In order to understand the true depth of mass surveillance in my own community, I filed a public records request for every documented capture of my vehicle’s movements by Flock Safety cameras—just within a single city.
What I received was striking: 243 linked data points documenting my vehicles over a six-month period — and 273 photos in total, including license plates and a vehicle that aren’t mine. I’ll explain that part in a moment.
You see, lawmakers across Arizona have authorized the use of public funds to pay private companies to monitor the movements of drivers on public roadways—sometimes without their knowledge or consent. This is fundamentally different from data we might voluntarily share through our phones or computers; this mass surveillance of vehicles is automatic, continuous, and inescapable. And it’s powered by AI—a system that is far from perfect as we reportedly saw in the recent case of a Colorado woman who had to prove her innocence after Flock cameras falsely placed her at the scene of a crime.
Getting the records wasn’t difficult—certainly easier than it was for Josh Frankel, a New York resident I interviewed whose similar request was denied and later won on appeal.
Records reveal that my vehicles were recorded as many as eight times a day—by Goodyear’s network of surveillance cameras. And that’s just within one city. I have no way of knowing how many more times my car was pinged during a summer road trip, (here are the five Flock cameras I found in Hanksville, Utah - a town of 158 people), or while simply running errands across Arizona. What IS clear is that this network doesn’t just monitor intersections or high-crime areas—it tracks the movements of ordinary citizens as they go about their daily lives.
On the surface, each image appears routine — a timestamped photo showing the sides or rear of my vehicle, close-ups of my license plates, and wide shots revealing my exact position in the lane. No photos of my face. I have chosen to not share these photos at this time. But collectively, the records expose something far more consequential: a comprehensive log of my movements through one city.
Over time, the accumulation of this data reconstructs a high-resolution map of daily life—where I go, when I travel, and how often I return. In fact, I can’t drive a mile from my home without being captured and cataloged.
My records returned 243 locations on specific dates and times. But also included were 273 photos.
🚨 What I also found troubling was that among the records I received were photos of vehicles and license plates that weren’t mine — yet they were tagged and logged under my plate information.
In a batch of 133 photos of one car, six close-up images were of license plates that are not mine, not associated to me in any way. And one image is of a red car, not mine, and a sliver of the back of a vehicle bumper - potentially mine but not verified as no plate is visible. Why are these photos tagged to my license plate data?
That discovery raises a serious question: how often are plates misidentified or linked to the wrong vehicle? And if those mistaken records are associated with someone wanted for a crime or placed on Flock’s HotList, does my plate remain in their file indefinitely?
I’ve asked the City of Goodyear if these images can be removed from my data and if my plates could be removed from other drivers’ data captured by Flock. I’ll report back once I receive a response.
It’s clear mass surveillance of cars on public streets turns ordinary commutes into digital footprints, recorded and stored not by choice, but by default.
Having never been arrested, charged with a crime, or convicted of one, I’ve asked the City of Goodyear why it retains detailed location data on private citizens who have done nothing wrong for so long. 185 days to be exact.
**On November 12, 2025, Goodyear provided detailed answers to my questions here.
I recently spoke to a former Goodyear lawmaker who admits the city should now have an open conversation about this technology. Catch my interview with mayoral candidate Bill Stipp here.
Stipp says the city must find ways to support law enforcement in maintaining order — but acknowledges that public safety often comes at a price, and that price is usually freedom.
“Let’s have the conversation. Let’s get people informed. Let’s set the context of what it is we’re doing. We haven’t done that. I don’t want to say I’m opposed to it. Because I am concerned about Big Brother. I read the book. But, I’m also cognizant of the fact that people have a lot of questions that we should be able to answer,” notes Bill Stipp.
But the question extends far beyond one city. As more Arizona communities adopt automated surveillance systems under the banner of public safety, the lack of clear safeguards around sharing data, access, and oversight raises a deeper concern: who is getting this data—and how/why are they using it?
And how is it funded?
I’ve uncovered government grants intended to help Arizona cities combat border-related crimes—such as drug trafficking, human smuggling, and illegal immigration—are also funding license plate reader surveillance technologies that officials say improve public safety. (My full investigation is coming soon.) Yet some of those same tools now monitor entire communities, raising questions about how they’re being used and where oversight begins and ends. Prescott Valley, Arizona is one such community, using grant dollars to expand its growing network of cameras.
A public records request from Prescott Valley, Arizona reveals my vehicle was tracked during a visit three times within twelve minutes—with precise data points showing my direction of travel.
In some Arizona communities, what begins as border-security funding has evolved into something much broader: a system capable of mapping the movements of innocent people far from the border.
Arizona’s Expanding Eye: Inside the State’s Growing Surveillance Network
To understand how license plate reader technology spread so quickly in Arizona, I began tracing its path city by city—examining how local governments justify its use, what lawmakers are told, and where public transparency begins to falter.
Flock Safety offers a Transparency Portal that allows government agencies to share public statistics and list their data-sharing partners. Prescott Valley uses this feature, openly disclosing that it shares information with 267 agencies across the U.S. The Town also provided me its ALPR Policy here.
As of November 12, 2025, Goodyear has published its transparency portal.
City officials told me they would considering adding the resource to help the police department communicate more openly with the community about how its data is shared.
Arizona Communities Begin Questioning the Reach of AI Surveillance
My curiosity deepened earlier this year after a spirited exchange between Senator T.J. Shope (R-LD16) and privacy advocate Shawn Dow during a legislative hearing at the State Capitol. Their discussion was over license plate readers used as traffic enforcement, or better known as photo radar and red light or “speed” cameras.
As I’ve explored how these AI-powered cameras fit into everyday life—what I’m finding is what local leaders are told about their capabilities, and how some communities, including Sedona and Avondale, are beginning to reconsider their use.
In an October 28th Flagstaff, Arizona information-only community discussion, city leaders listened to 5 hours of public comment over Flock’s AI-powered license plate readers that were installed last year without public input, (check my reporting on this here). You can review this meeting here.
Meanwhile, in Prescott Valley, police officials met this week to discuss questions about the town’s surveillance program and how data is shared after I reached out with questions.
The Prescott Valley Police Department became the third law enforcement agency in Arizona to engage in an on-the-record discussion about this issue with me. I appreciate Administrative Lieutenant Daniel Hays for his transparency and for offering thoughtful context on a complex and rapidly evolving topic.
Here’s a brief preview of our nearly hour-long conversation — a discussion I’ll be releasing in full soon.
Arizona Senate President Warns: Local Surveillance Ripe for Litigation and Legislation
I asked Senate President Warren Petersen for his thoughts on the growing scope of surveillance in Arizona communities under the banner of public safety, and whether he plans to introduce or support legislation next session to strengthen privacy protections and establish clear limits on how data is collected, shared, and stored.
Sen. Petersen responded promptly, saying:
“The Arizona Constitution is unique in that it explicitly protects our privacy. These actions are unconstitutional unless explicitly authorized by law. This question is ripe for litigation and legislation.”
Several states have strict policies regarding license plate readers and data retention. Could Arizona be next?
FLOCK’S RESPONSE IN ONE ARIZONA TOWN
The media phone line at Flock is not answered by a person and does not go to voicemail. I’ve also reached out to the company this week by email through both its media and support contacts.
I received an email from its Support email telling me to contact its Media Relations email. Which I had. I have not heard back from anyone at the company.
Here is the Flock presentation at the Flagstaff meeting in September 2025. And here is my coverage of the Flock presentation from Sedona in August 2025.
Mayor Questions ‘Big Brother’ Concerns; Flock Representative Defends Safeguards
During the June 2025 Study Session, Prescott Valley Mayor Kell Palguta raised privacy concerns about the town’s expanding use of Flock Safety’s camera system.
“So I’m sure you hear this a lot or you’ve had this question,” Palguta said. “And I’ve seen it before too—this is a great tool for our law enforcement officers. But it’s that fine line where you have those people that argue ‘Big Brother is watching.’ What do you say? What does your company say to those folks?”
Hamza Al Baroudi, a Flock Safety representative, acknowledged the concern, saying the company builds in safeguards to prevent misuse.
“The system—we try to draw as much parameters as we possibly can to make sure there is an audit trail and make sure there’s not a misuse in the system,” he said, noting that users must provide a reason for every search.
“We have a 30-day retention policy on this, so we’re not just holding on to data and getting to the point where we’re over-policing.”
Following an audit in Illinois, Flock Safety faced scrutiny for allowing out-of-state and federal agencies to access Illinois license plate data in potential violation of state law—a revelation that prompted the company to tighten its audit policies, restrict data sharing, and pledge greater transparency.
“To promote additional accountability, prevent misuse, and make identifying unallowed searches easier, we are also instituting an option for agencies to elect to require a case number for any searches conducted in the system.”
Flock Website
Jen’s Two Cents.
What’s in YOUR Flock file?
You can file a public records request with government agencies to obtain your own license plate data collected by their cameras.
Here is the wording I used for my information. If you file a records request and would like to add to the conversation about your experience in getting your records, feel free to let me know.
FOIA RECORDS REQUEST EXAMPLE COPY:
Pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law, I respectfully request copies of all records showing the dates, times, and locations of [NAME OF GOVERNMENT AGENCY HERE]’s Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) captures involving my personal vehicles bearing Arizona license plates: [YOUR LICENSE PLATE(S) HERE].
Please include all available data for the duration of the agency’s retention period or for the full period such records are maintained. Additionally, I request any associated photos or images of my vehicles and license plates for these vehicles.
If any portion of this request is denied or redacted, please cite the specific statutory exemption authorizing the withholding and provide a description sufficient to understand the basis for the denial. Please notify me in advance of any estimated fees prior to processing this request.
To better understand automated license plate reader cameras and the potential problems they pose, please check out this video by privacy pro Naomi Brockwell.