Welch: Public safety and privacy can coexist in the Flock camera debate
Published 1:30 am Tuesday, March 17, 2026
By Todd Welch / Herald Columnist
Across Washington, communities are debating the use of automated license plate reader systems such as those produced by Flock Safety. The debate has intensified following court rulings and legislative proposals that would regulate how the data collected by these cameras is used, stored, and disclosed.
This conversation is worth having. Privacy concerns about any new technology deserve serious consideration.
But productive public debate must begin with a clear understanding of what these cameras actually do and what they do not do.
Automated license plate reader cameras are fixed cameras installed along public roadways that photograph vehicles and license plates already visible to anyone driving or walking past the location. They record the plate number, time, and location and compare that information with databases of stolen vehicles or vehicles connected to criminal investigations.
They do not use facial recognition. They do not record conversations. They do not peer into homes or private spaces.
In short, these cameras document activity that is already occurring in public view.
That distinction matters. Courts have long recognized that individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy when traveling on public roads. A camera capturing an image of a license plate that is openly displayed on a vehicle is not searching for someone’s private life. It is recording what anyone standing on the same street could already observe.
This does not mean the technology should be deployed without safeguards. Communities are right to ask questions about how long images are stored, who has access to them, and how they might be shared with other agencies. Sensible guardrails help ensure that tools designed to improve public safety do not become tools of unnecessary surveillance.
However, the current debate often skips over these nuances and jumps straight to worst-case scenarios.
That dynamic was on display recently in Lynnwood, where the City Council voted to remove Flock cameras that had been installed to assist with criminal investigations. Regardless of where one stands on the technology itself, the decision felt less like the result of a careful policy evaluation and more like a reaction to public pressure and fear of potential misuse.
When local governments face emerging technology questions, residents deserve thoughtful, balanced debate. They deserve an open examination of both the risks and the benefits.
Automated license plate reader systems have helped law enforcement agencies recover stolen vehicles, locate suspects in violent crimes, and identify vehicles associated with missing person cases. At the same time, legitimate questions remain about how the data is stored and who can access it.
Those questions should lead to policy improvements, not reflexive removal of tools that operate entirely in public spaces.
One of the most complicated issues now facing policymakers involves how the images collected by these systems should be treated under Washington’s Public Records Act.
A court ruling last year concluded that images captured by license plate reader systems may qualify as public records subject to disclosure requests. Transparency in government is a fundamental value, and public records laws play an essential role in maintaining public trust.
But automated license plate reader systems generate enormous volumes of images every day. Most of those images involve ordinary residents simply driving through an intersection on their way to work, school, or home.
Applying traditional public disclosure rules to these databases could unintentionally create a searchable archive of the movements of law-abiding people.
Ironically, that outcome could produce the very privacy concerns critics of the technology are trying to avoid.
A system designed to help locate stolen vehicles or identify suspects could become a tool that allows anyone to map the travel patterns of private citizens through public records requests. That would do little to improve transparency while creating new privacy risks.
A more balanced approach is possible.
Communities can adopt strict limits on how long automated license plate reader images are retained. Access to the data can be restricted to legitimate criminal investigations, with clear auditing requirements and penalties for misuse. The systems themselves can be limited to photographing license plates and vehicles in public spaces, without expanding into more intrusive surveillance technologies.
At the same time, policymakers should recognize that the raw image databases generated by these systems are fundamentally different from traditional government documents. Treating them as routine public records could undermine both privacy protections and the effectiveness of the systems.
Public safety and civil liberties do not have to be opposing goals.
Washington communities should take privacy concerns seriously while also acknowledging the basic reality that photographing license plates on public streets is documenting activity already visible to anyone who happens to be there.
The challenge for policymakers is not choosing between privacy and safety. It is crafting thoughtful policies that respect both.
That requires careful analysis, open debate, and a willingness to resist reactionary decisions driven more by fear than by facts.
Todd Welch is a Herald columnist covering local and state issues.
