Protestors at Lowe’s Call for Flock to be Herded Away

In May, roughly two dozen protestors spent about an hour outside Lowe’s Bayshore Boulevard outlet calling for the store to terminate its use of Flock Safety’s license plate surveillance technology to monitor the parking lot.  

The protest was organized by Fight for the Future, a digital advocacy group composed of artists, activists, engineers, and technology experts, and DeFlock SF. Indivisible SF; Secure Justice, an Oakland-based nonprofit that advocates for privacy and civil rights; and Bay Resistance, a coalition of community organizations, unions and neighborhood groups, among others, supported the effort. 

“The goal was to highlight how the use of Flock’s technologies invades individuals’ privacy rights and puts undocumented immigrants in particular at risk,” said Zachary Schwartz, DeFlock SF managing director.

Schwartz, a former Potrero Hill resident, is a Lowell High School student who lives in the Mission. He added that the protest was meant to discourage the City from renewing government contracts with Flock, and to inform Lowe’s shoppers that they were being surveilled by Flock’s technologies. Schwartz said future actions are being planned throughout the City. 

“They did not seem happy to learn that data about their vehicles was being collected,” said Reem Suleiman, Fight for the Future campaign director. “We saw one Flock Automated License Plate Reader right next to where people drive into the parking lot. Shoppers seemed shocked about Lowe’s connection to Flock and by proxy, to ICE.” 

Flock Safety’s website states that it doesn’t work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, Media 404, an independent media outlet, obtained records of nationwide searches in which law enforcement agencies using Flock identified their explorations as being instigated on behalf of ICE for immigration-related reasons. 

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) contracts with Flock to use its Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). SFPD’s website states that ALPR data isn’t used to enforce immigration laws. However, a department audit released in June found that federal and out-of-state agencies “improperly” searched San Francisco license-plate data gathered through SFPD’s Flock system of surveillance cameras 299 over the course of a year. 

In addition, California drivers who are plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, Javorsky et al. v. Flock Group, Inc., assert that Flock allowed out-of-state law enforcement agencies to search SFPD’s ALPR database more than 1.6 million times in 2024 and 2025, in some cases possibly related to immigration. Such actions would violate numerous state laws, including California Senate Bill 34, the ALPR Privacy Act, enacted in 2015. 

Brian Hofer, Secure Justice’s executive director, acknowledged it was difficult for the City to regulate behavior by private parties like Lowe’s. 

“Yet it’s not impossible. The City can pass municipal ordinances mandating that businesses abide by those rules to operate in the City. The City can also take other measures to discourage the use of surveillance technology.” 

These could include limiting or denying incentives for businesses that use surveillance technologies and assessing new taxes on them. In 2021 the City of Portland, Oregon banned facial recognition technology in places of public accommodation. According to Hofer, the ban applies to publicly accessible parking facilities, though not lots marked with “no trespassing” signs. 

“We want to call attention to the fact that even though San Francisco is a Sanctuary City, people’s data is still being collected and used by corporations and law enforcement agencies, without any notice to them or oversight by state or local government,” said Hofer. 

“Any time you collect data about people, the use, storage, and sharing of such data raises concerns about protecting their civil rights,” said District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton. “I have also had constituents of District 10 contact me with concerns about Flock’s technologies…we have other municipalities that are pausing and even ending their relationship with Flock cameras due to privacy concerns, data sharing and harmful practices towards immigrants. It just doesn’t make sense to me for us to support these devices in our neighborhoods with other cities not trusting the technology, that should at the very least give us a pause on this. Without proper safeguards this technology can be misused and disproportionally affect people of color and erode the trust between community and law enforcement.” 

Neither Lowe’s nor Flock Safety responded to interview requests from The Potrero View. 

A proposal floated at Lowe’s May shareholder meeting requesting a report on the risks of sharing customer data with third parties failed to gain majority support. 

“Surveillance systems can directly reduce insurance costs and losses for businesses,” said Mark Friedlander, senior director of media relations at the Insurance Information Institute, a national insurance industry trade association. “Commercial insurers view surveillance systems as a proactive risk-mitigation tool. By using surveillance to reduce the probability of theft, vandalism and property damage, a business can typically qualify for a premium discount ranging from five percent to 20 percent.” 

Atlanta-based Flock’s website states that its customers own its Flock camera data and determine who can access it. 

“Flock does not sell your data, and no outside agency can view your information unless you choose to share it,” stated Flock, on its website.  

Lowe’s corporate website states that it’ll disclose personal information like that collected by Flock’s technologies “if required by law or legal process, or when we believe doing so will help protect the safety, property, or rights of individuals or Lowe’s.” 

In Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc., filed in the Court of Appeal, First District of California, Division Five, Brendan Bartholomew, who parked his vehicle in a private San Francisco parking garage, sued the operator for violating the ALPR Privacy Act. The appellate court found that the operator had failed to implement a usage and privacy policy, reversing the trial court’s ruling in favor of the garage, and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

“We’re waiting to see what the trial court does with Bartholomew. For all its talk about privacy and civil liberties, California is a stronghold for Flock. Ironically, it’s cities in Southern states, such as North Carolina, that are cancelling their contracts. We’d like to see San Francisco follow Santa Cruz’s example to cancel its contract, and discourage businesses from contracting with Flock as well,” said Hofer.