‘This is not what I signed up for’: Flock cameras raise privacy concerns across West Virginia

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Before Olivia Lathwell leaves home, she sometimes checks where cameras are.

The Monongalia County resident said she uses an online map to track Flock Safety cameras and, when she can, takes another route. Lathwell said she is not trying to hide from the police. She simply does not want a camera recording her license plate every time she drives by one.

“I feel way less safe knowing that there’s Flock cameras around,” Lathwell said. “I feel like that’s counterintuitive to what their point is.”

For Monongalia County residents Lathwell and Paige Reiring, concerns over Flock cameras have created an unlikely point of political common ground.

Lathwell identifies as politically conservative, while Reiring is a Mountain Party candidate for the West Virginia House of Delegates. Despite their political differences, both question how much information the government should be able to collect about people who have not been accused of a crime.

For Lathwell, the issue comes down to privacy.

“I don’t like this at all,” she said. “This is not what I signed up for.”

Reiring’s concerns center on the technology behind the cameras and the amount of data they can collect.

“For me, the issue is the automated aspect of ALPRs, automatic license plate readers, because a lot of these depend on AI-powered software and surveillance systems, which is where we get the harvesting of data,” Reiring said.

Their concerns show how the debate surrounding Flock cameras does not fall neatly along traditional political lines. As the technology becomes more common in Monongalia County, residents from different sides of the political spectrum are raising similar questions about privacy, surveillance and the collection of their data.

As artificial intelligence becomes capable of doing tasks once left to people, Flock’s automated license plate readers are doing the same for law enforcement – identifying vehicle information and making it searchable for officers.

The technology can speed up investigations. It also means information about ordinary drivers can be collected before they are suspected of a crime.

Flock Safety says its license plate reader system uses cameras and data processing to turn images of vehicles and license plates into computer-readable information. Flock also uses machine learning to identify visible vehicle characteristics, including make, model, color and body type, as well as more distinctive features such as bumper or window stickers, dents and other damage, roof or bike racks, toolboxes, aftermarket modifications, temporary tags and missing license plates.

Flock Safety says its license plate reader system does not use facial recognition or identify drivers or passengers. Privacy advocates, however, argue the technology is more expansive than a traditional license plate reader. The American Civil Liberties Union has raised concerns about Flock’s ability to create a searchable record of a vehicle’s movements across a network of cameras, allowing information collected at different locations and times to be pieced together.

For Lathwell, that concern is personal enough to affect where she drives.

“Otherwise, I just have to, like, drive by it and be sad that now ... my license plate’s been read,” she said.

There are 20 Flock cameras throughout Monongalia County. The cameras are placed along roads and in high traffic areas, meaning residents may pass them during everyday drives around the county.

The same debate is taking shape among West Virginia lawmakers, although there is less agreement about what restrictions should look like.

Delegate Tristan Leavitt, R-Kanawha, said lawmakers are still gathering information about the technology before deciding what could be included in potential legislation. The West Virginia Legislature’s next regular session begins Jan. 13, 2027, when lawmakers could introduce legislation addressing the use of Flock cameras.

Leavitt said one of the most important distinctions is between using a camera to see what happened at a specific place and time and using a network of cameras to reconstruct a person’s movements.

“If you’re simply searching, you know, to view a camera at a specific moment in time, that’s a lot more analogous to if you had an officer just sitting on the side of the road, taking pictures,” he said.

Leavitt said looking through a person’s travel history is different.

“If you were viewing someone’s entire history, and where they went, based on where you have all the cameras, that’s much more intrusive,” he said.

That distinction could become important as lawmakers consider whether police should need a warrant to search information collected by the cameras.

Delegate Kayla Young, D-Kanawha, did not hesitate when asked whether officers should need a warrant to search someone’s historical location information.

“Absolutely,” she said. "Every single time.”

Young said she plans to pursue legislation placing restrictions on automated license plate readers and other surveillance systems during the 2027 legislative session. She said her concern extends beyond individual cameras, though.

“I think the line is the network and how broad the network is,” Young said.

She said Americans have become accustomed to security cameras operated by police, governments and private businesses, but connecting cameras across a larger network creates a different privacy concern.

Delegate Leavitt takes a less absolute position on warrants. He said lawmakers have heard different arguments about when a warrant should be required, including proposals based on how old the information is and others focused on the type of search being conducted.

“I think it’s important that we talk to law enforcement, that we talk to people who are actually in the field, as well as civil liberties advocates and others with privacy concerns, that we strike the best balance possible,” Leavitt said.

Delegate Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, is also working on legislation involving Flock cameras and similar technology. He said he wants restrictions on how the systems can be used, how long information can be retained and records showing which officers search the system and why.

“I think people are very concerned about government surveillance for good reason, because these types of cameras are more powerful than the other types of surveillance that have been used for years,” Hansen said.

He said he doesn’t expect the cameras themselves to disappear.

“I think that the cameras are here to stay,” he said.

But Hansen also pushed back on some of the rhetoric surrounding the issue in Monongalia County. Residents have repeatedly brought their concerns about the cameras to county officials during Monongalia County Commission meetings, and he said disagreement over surveillance should not become personal.

“The people that are speaking to the Mon County Commission every week need to tone down the rhetoric a little bit,” Hansen said, adding that some memes and rhetoric surrounding the issue have become concerning.

“It should still be possible for people to disagree about really important issues like privacy and Flock cameras and to have a policy discussion about it that’s respectful,” he said.

That disagreement is unlikely to fit neatly along party lines.

Leavitt said he has heard from constituents who want the cameras banned, people who support them, people who want stronger safeguards, and others who know little about the technology.

West Virginia lawmakers have already considered legislation addressing automated license plate readers. During the 2026 regular session, House Bill 4628 included license plate readers in broader restrictions on government collection of location and movement data. House Bill 4682 went further, proposing restrictions on law enforcement’s warrantless use of license plate readers and other surveillance technology.

For Lathwell, privacy is one place where political differences can come back to the same concern.

“We have a fundamental right to it,” she said.

The debate over Flock cameras is expected to continue when lawmakers return to Charleston for the 2027 regular session. Young and Hansen said they plan to work on legislation addressing automated license plate readers, while Leavitt said lawmakers are still considering what restrictions could look like.

For now, the cameras remain in use across Monongalia County, while lawmakers decide what limits, if any, should come next.

“We are being surveilled from our phones ... and from the information that we post online,” Lathwell said. “Of course, we’re being surveilled, but you know, to what extent are we allowing it to continue to worsen?”