Auburn, Washington, has become a focal point in a heated debate over surveillance technology and data privacy after its police department disabled federal access to its Flock Safety camera system. This move follows revelations that U.S. Border Patrol covertly searched local police databases, raising significant civil liberties concerns and challenging state laws.
The city of Auburn, Washington, has found itself at the center of a burgeoning controversy surrounding surveillance technology and data privacy. Its police department recently took the significant step of disabling the “National Lookup” feature of its Flock camera system after discovering that the U.S. Border Patrol had gained unauthorized access to its data. This incident has ignited a broader discussion across Washington State about local control over law enforcement data and the reach of federal agencies.
The Revelations: Covert Federal Access to Local Data
The controversy stems from a comprehensive report published by the University of Washington Center for Human Rights on October 22, 2025. This report brought to light that the U.S. Border Patrol had conducted thousands of searches using data from more than 30 Washington state law enforcement agencies. Shockingly, many of these local agencies, including Auburn, Renton, and Lakewood, were unaware that federal immigration authorities had access to their surveillance databases.
The Flock Safety system, utilized by these departments, consists of automated license plate reader cameras that capture time- and location-stamped images and license plate numbers. While intended for criminal law enforcement, the report indicated that Border Patrol cited “immigration” and “targeting” as reasons for some of its searches, raising red flags for civil liberties advocates.
Local Agencies React: Disabling Access and Strengthening Protections
Upon notification by the University of Washington researchers, several police departments quickly moved to restrict federal access to their data. In Auburn, Assistant Police Chief Samuel Betz and Mayor Nancy Backus emphasized that the city had not knowingly permitted federal immigration enforcement agencies like ICE or Border Patrol to access its Flock system. The city promptly disabled the “National Lookup” feature, which allowed external agencies to search their data, and is implementing monthly reviews to identify and revoke access for any agency using the data for immigration purposes, as reported by The Center Square.
Other affected agencies also took swift action:
- Renton Police Department: Chief Jon Schuldt stated that “even the possibility” of misuse was unacceptable. Deputy Police Chief Ryan Rutledge noted Renton was among thousands whose data was accessed in “blanket searches” and that they have since blocked external access unless a specific request is submitted.
- Lakewood Police Department: Chief Patrick Smith contacted Flock Safety, who assured him Border Patrol had not searched their data for immigration enforcement but revoked Border Patrol’s access regardless.
Flock Safety, through its Chief Legal Officer Dan Haley, contested the report’s accuracy, stating that customer data is never shared without authorization and that collaboration with federal agencies is “wholly up to them.” However, the events suggest a loophole in how “authorization” might have been interpreted or configured.
The Legal and Ethical Landscape: Keep Washington Working Act and Privacy Concerns
This incident brings into sharp focus the Keep Washington Working Act, a 2019 state law that largely prohibits state agencies from cooperating with immigration enforcement. Governor Bob Ferguson stated his office and the Attorney General’s office are investigating the report to ensure local jurisdictions comply with this bipartisan law.
Civil rights advocates, such as Tee Sannon, director of the ACLU of Washington’s technology policy program, voiced serious concerns. Sannon highlighted that the surveillance technology maps people’s movements and behaviors, creating “real risk around overreach and misuse… to target vulnerable Washingtonians, especially immigrants, protesters and people seeking abortions or gender-affirming care.” The ACLU is now calling for state lawmakers to enact “common-sense protections” for surveillance technology, including limits on data storage and sharing.
Researchers like Phil Neff cautioned that even if filters are added to block searches for terms like “immigration,” federal agents could easily sidestep them by using broader terms like “investigation.” This highlights the challenge of technical solutions alone without robust policy and oversight.
Community and Political Reactions: A Divided Public
The news has elicited strong reactions, both from local officials and the community. Auburn Mayor Backus asserted, “The integrity of our public safety systems, and the trust our community places in them, is non-negotiable.” Yet, comments on the city’s social media posts revealed a divided public.
Some residents criticized the city’s decision to block federal access, arguing that law enforcement agencies should cooperate to find criminals. For example, some asked: “Why wouldn’t you want them to have access to it? If they are searching for a criminal, wouldn’t you want them to find the criminal?” Others raised questions about selective law enforcement, stating, “So, which laws are you committed to not enforcing[?]”
Washington State Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh echoed some of these sentiments, stating that city officials “can’t have it both ways.” He criticized the idea of bureaucrats deciding how information is used and which laws are enforced, suggesting that if Auburn doesn’t want federal agencies accessing the data, the surveillance system should be removed entirely.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Surveillance and Data Governance
The situation in Auburn and across Washington State serves as a critical case study in the ongoing national debate about surveillance technology, data privacy, and the complex relationship between local and federal law enforcement. As cities grapple with balancing public safety tools against civil liberties and state mandates, the emphasis on transparency, accountability, and clear governance becomes paramount.
The actions taken by Auburn and other departments, such as disabling broad federal access and implementing monthly data reviews, are important initial steps. However, the incident underscores the need for continuous dialogue, legislative action, and robust oversight to ensure that surveillance technologies are used ethically and in alignment with community values and legal frameworks. The outcome of these discussions will likely shape future policies on digital privacy and law enforcement practices in Washington State and potentially beyond.
