1. United States
2. Texas
3. Letter

There are now over 80,000 Flock Safety cameras installed across the United States, creating one of the largest privately operated surveillance networks in the country. I urge you to oppose the continued expansion and public funding of Flock Safety’s cameras, services, and data infrastructure, and to support strong federal oversight of this industry. Independent researchers have identified serious, easily exploitable vulnerabilities in Flock devices. On certain models, a simple physical sequence can expose a wireless access point that grants full control of the camera. Attackers can extract data, install malware, or alter footage. Many devices run discontinued versions of Android with hundreds of known security flaws, making them unsuitable for any system feeding into public safety or criminal investigations. Access controls governing this nationwide network are also dangerously inadequate. Stolen law enforcement accounts have appeared for sale on criminal marketplaces, and some agencies still access sensitive data without mandatory multi-factor authentication. Ordinary Americans use stronger protections for personal email than many officers use to view detailed location histories of millions of drivers. A surveillance system is only as strong as its weakest user, and these weaknesses expose national-scale data to hackers and foreign intelligence services. Flock’s central marketing claim—that its systems help solve 10 to 14 percent of all crime nationwide, has not been independently verified. The company’s study relies on self-reported data from its own customers and does not compare jurisdictions that use Flock with those that do not. Local reviews have repeatedly found that many of Flock’s touted success statistics pre-date camera deployment or are not reflected in broader crime trends. Public safety policy should be grounded in independent evidence, not company sales materials. Given these concerns, I ask you to support: 1. Federal investigations into Flock Safety’s security practices, data handling, and marketing claims. 2. Conditions on federal funding that require mandatory multi-factor authentication, up-to-date operating systems, and independent security testing. 3. A licensing and audit process requiring private surveillance vendors to undergo regular, public, third-party security and privacy evaluations. 4. Strong transparency and limits on data retention and sharing. Until meaningful safeguards exist, I urge you to oppose further expansion of Flock Safety’s systems to protect the security, privacy, and trust of the public.