Duluth Pulls Flock Cameras After 6 of 9 Devices Stolen or Damaged

For cybersecurity teams, Duluth's Flock deployment is a real-world physical security incident: 67% of street-mounted cameras were stolen or damaged between June and August 2026, forcing all nine offline. Lost devices raise hard questions about onboard data at rest, network authentication, and whether stolen hardware could become an entry point into municipal systems.

The Duluth Police Department is pulling out of its one-year pilot with Flock Safety after the fixed license plate reader cameras proved, in Chief Mike Ceynowa's words, 'easily susceptible to vandalism and theft,' with six of nine devices stolen or damaged since June and all nine offline as of Aug. 12, 2026. The department issued its non-renewal notice Aug. 3, the day before Minnesota headlines began highlighting stolen and destroyed Flock cameras across the state, and the contract officially expires Sept. 7. Duluth is not abandoning plate-reader technology altogether: it has used mobile readers since 2011, starting with two squad-car units and growing to about 60 devices across its patrol fleet. But the fixed-camera deployment, funded through a one-year grant, lacked an ongoing funding source and became a target of physical attacks.

“

For cybersecurity teams, Duluth's Flock deployment is a real-world physical security incident: 67% of street-mounted cameras were stolen or damaged between June and August 2026, forcing all nine offline.

The decision is operationally significant but not isolated. Flock Safety has become one of the most visible vendors in the public safety surveillance market, with stationary cameras installed in thousands of communities. Duluth's exit highlights three frictions. First, physical security: a 67% physical loss rate for deployed cameras over a few months is an extraordinary failure for infrastructure whose core purpose is surveillance and deterrence. If cameras can be stolen or vandalized at that rate, their deterrence value is questionable and their total cost of ownership rises sharply. Second, funding: the pilot was grant-funded for one year, with no identified continuation money. This mirrors a broader local government challenge in which grant-funded surveillance tools are adopted without a sustainable budget path, leaving departments with hardware they cannot maintain or renew. Third, public legitimacy: Flock systems have become controversial nationwide over privacy, misuse, and error concerns. Duluth's timing—notifying the vendor a day before statewide destruction reports—suggests the department was already on a path to unwind the technology before the latest wave of scrutiny.

The retention of roughly 60 mobile plate readers is often overlooked. The 2011 investment in two squad-car units demonstrates long-standing institutional acceptance of LPR data for specific missions such as tracking missing people, stolen vehicles, and Amber or Silver alerts. That track record may partly explain why the department is willing to exit only the stationary Flock product rather than the entire LPR category. The mobile form factor keeps equipment within police vehicles, reducing vulnerability and perhaps lowering the volume of continuous stationary collection that has driven privacy objections. The distinction between mobile and fixed collection could become important in future debates over where and how LPR data is gathered.