The high points

• The Guardian reports that some cities ending Flock relationships have moved toward replacement ALPR systems, including products from Axon.
• In Longmont, Colorado, officials moved toward an Axon system after allowing the Flock contract to lapse; activists said the underlying privacy debate was never resolved.
• The report says at least 56 municipalities had deactivated, canceled or rejected Flock contracts in 2026, while private cameras and slow removal of canceled equipment complicated those victories.

Our take

This is the difference between vendor reform and surveillance reform. If a city removes one company’s camera and installs another company’s camera with similar reach, retention and cross-system connectivity, residents have won a branding change—not a privacy victory.

The right question is not simply “Do we trust Flock?” or “Do we trust Axon?” It is: what data may the government collect about every driver, how long may it keep that data, who may search it, and what independent authority can stop abuse? Those rules should be debated before a purchase vote, written into law and contracts, and applied to every vendor—including private systems pointed at public roads.

Why it matters

Cities can easily turn public backlash into a procurement shuffle. Residents should demand technology-neutral rules so the same surveillance architecture cannot quietly return under a new name.

Public-records checklist

• The proposed and final vendor contracts
• Data-retention and deletion policies
• Interagency sharing permissions
• Search and audit logs
• Privacy-impact assessments and staff presentations to council

Who’s Watching Who? summarizes and comments on reporting published elsewhere. Facts attributed to the original outlet remain that outlet’s reporting; our analysis is clearly labeled. Follow the source link for the full context.