A company that blanketed American roads with license-plate-reading cameras is now sending drones into the sky. Cities across America are grappling with their own debates about aid to law enforcement, coupled with concerns about privacy and surveillance.
Flock’s Drone-as-First-Responder system, or DFR, launches remotely operated drones from automated rooftop docks. A drone can be sent to a location generated by a 911 call, a license-plate-reader alert, or a gunshot-detection alert. It will then stream live video to dispatchers, officers in the field, and a real-time crime center.
The company entered the market through its 2024 acquisition of the drone firm Aerodome. They advertise high-definition video, as well as thermal imaging. Integration with the rest of its sensor network is also available.
Police have flown drones for years. However, a system that connects an emergency call to an automatically launched aircraft, a live video feed, and a crime center in one loop, tied to a company’s other data, is entirely new. Flock said drones are its fastest-growing business.
Military.com reached out to Flock Safety with questions about the program’s growth, its data policies, and the concerns raised in city debates. No response was received by publication.
How One Police Department Has Used DFR
Departments that use DFR say it gets eyes on a scene faster than a patrol car and can settle some calls without sending officers at all.
Fort Worth, Texas, launched a DFR pilot running from May through June 2026 and offered some evidence in its own report. Over a two-month period, the report said, its drones responded to 162 calls, arrived in an average of 112 seconds, were first on scene 47% of the time, and cleared 11 calls without dispatching patrol officers.
Police officials see the cameras as response, not monitoring.
“The drone’s purpose is not surveillance; it’s first response,” Middletown, Conn., Police Chief Erik Costa told CT Insider as his city weighed a program.
Costa said that Middletown’s drone footage “would not be shared…outside the building unless there is a search warrant” and that unused footage “would be erased within 30 days.”
Fort Worth has said its drones respond to calls rather than patrol for wrongdoing and keep their cameras pointed toward the horizon while traveling to a scene.
Some Cities Are Diving Into New Tech
Some areas have moved quickly.
Castle Rock, Colo., deployed Flock DFR under a three-year, $600,000 contract. They say its drones do not use audio, facial recognition or license-plate reading.
Dunwoody, Ga., approved a $200,000 DFR agreement in April despite hours of public opposition, after officials said revised terms tightened controls over who could see the data.
In Fulton County, Ga., the sheriff’s office launched what it described as a first-of-its-kind program using drones for jail security.
Several of the adopting departments have written express limits into their programs, a point their officials stress in response to residents worried about broader monitoring.
Other Municipalities Hitting Pause Button
Other cities have turned Flock down.
In May, the Berkeley (California) City Council rejected a roughly $2 million expansion of its Flock system that would have added drones, cameras and software. They kept only its existing license-plate readers.
The vote followed a leaked memo from the city attorney’s office citing instances in other cities where Flock camera data had been shared with outside agencies.
In Bridgeport, Conn., the city council rejected a $500,000 lease for two DFR drones after residents raised privacy concerns, predominantly including fears that the data could reach federal immigration authorities.
Flock has said it does not work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known more commonly as ICE.
In Middletown, the city approved a trial early in the year. But the mayor declined to sign the contract months later, citing the need to protect privacy and civil liberties. He said the city would look at other drone options.
Pros and Cons
Opposition is often not to drones themselves. Rather, concerns emanate due to what the wider system enables.
Privacy groups and residents have raised concerns that cluster around a few themes. One is mission creep, or the worry that a tool sold for emergencies could grow into routine aerial monitoring.
Another is integration, more specifically the fact that DFR is tied to Flock’s license-plate readers, 911 data and other sensors instead of operating alone.
A third is data governance, including how long footage is kept, whether other agencies can obtain it, and whether federal authorities can gain access. Accompanying this is a broader loss of trust in Flock, as the business has faced its own backlash.
USA Today reported that law enforcement across the country searched the camera network without warrants for purposes beyond specific investigations. Many of these officers have been fired or arrested themselves for this.
Flock recently announced new safeguards, including shorter default data retention, audit assistance, and stronger authentication.
The company says its customers own their data and that it does not sell it. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that governments, not vendors, should set limits on retention, sharing and searches.
Read the full article here