Exposed Critical Security Vulnerabilities in Flock Safety Cameras in 2025

In an era of rapidly expanding surveillance technology, Flock Safety’s AI-powered camera systems have become widely adopted tools for law enforcement and local governments. These systems rely on automated license plate recognition technology and advanced monitoring capabilities designed to enhance public safety. However, disclosures in 2025 revealed significant security vulnerabilities that raised serious concerns about privacy, data protection, and public trust.

The issues range from misconfigured internet-facing cameras to physical hardware weaknesses and software authentication flaws. Together, they have prompted renewed scrutiny of how AI-driven surveillance systems are deployed and secured.

Overview of Flock Safety Technology

Flock Safety produces automated license plate recognition cameras, Condor PTZ surveillance units, and AI-assisted monitoring platforms used by police departments and municipalities across the United States. These systems collect vehicle movement data, monitor public areas, and integrate with other enforcement technologies.

While proponents argue the technology assists in crime prevention and investigations, critics have warned that rapid expansion has outpaced adequate security controls. The vulnerabilities identified in 2025 have reinforced those concerns.

Condor PTZ Cameras Exposed Through Misconfiguration

One of the most serious issues emerged in late 2025 involving Flock Safety’s Condor PTZ cameras. Independent security researcher and YouTuber Benn Jordan highlighted the problem in a video titled “This Flock Camera Leak Is Like Netflix for Stalkers.”

The investigation revealed that dozens of cameras were improperly configured and accessible directly through the internet without password protection. Using basic web search techniques, unauthorized users could view live footage and archived video spanning up to 30 days.

The exposed streams reportedly included footage of playgrounds, emergency responses, and high-traffic intersections in locations such as Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Douglas County, Colorado. The ease of access raised alarms about stalking, misuse, and unauthorized surveillance.

Flock Safety described the issue as a configuration error and stated it had been resolved through updates. Even so, security experts noted the exposure underscored a lack of default safeguards that could prevent such incidents.

Physical Hardware Vulnerabilities Identified

Separate research also uncovered physical security weaknesses in Flock Safety cameras. In another video released by Benn Jordan titled “We Hacked Flock Safety Cameras in Under 30 Seconds,” researchers demonstrated how close physical access could compromise the devices.

The findings included exposed USB ports, unsecured internal storage, and button combinations that could initiate unauthorized wireless access. Some older units were found to use unencrypted storage on outdated Android systems, increasing the risk of data extraction or tampering.

Although these attacks require physical proximity, experts warned that publicly mounted cameras are inherently vulnerable. Flock Safety acknowledged the findings and stated that patches and hardware updates had been issued where possible.

Software and Authentication Weaknesses

Additional concerns surfaced involving software vulnerabilities. A flaw identified as CVE-2025-59403 affected the Android-based Collins application used with Flock systems. The vulnerability involved insufficient authentication checks that could allow unauthorized access to certain functions.

Security advocates also raised concerns about the absence of mandatory multi-factor authentication for sensitive data portals. Combined with broad data-sharing practices, including information sharing with federal agencies, critics argued the system lacked adequate safeguards against misuse.

Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union have cited these weaknesses as examples of the risks associated with large-scale automated surveillance.

Broader Implications for Privacy and Oversight

The vulnerabilities identified in 2025 sparked renewed debate over the ethical and legal boundaries of surveillance technology. Large camera networks that track vehicle movements can reveal detailed patterns of daily life, raising concerns about personal privacy and potential abuse.

In response to public backlash, some municipalities in states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania reconsidered or canceled contracts with Flock Safety. The company has stated that it is committed to improving security standards and transparency.

Privacy advocates continue to call for stronger regulatory oversight, mandatory security audits, and clearer limits on how surveillance data is collected, stored, and shared.

As AI-driven monitoring systems expand, the 2025 Flock Safety disclosures serve as a reminder that public safety technology must be paired with rigorous security practices to protect civil liberties.

About The Author