MapQuest has introduced a new 'Surveillance Layer' that shows drivers the reported locations of Flock Safety cameras and other roadside monitoring devices across the United States.
Announced on 15 October 2026, the feature highlights where automated licence plate readers (ALPRs) may record passing vehicles, amid growing concerns about surveillance and location-data privacy.
Available through MapQuest's mobile app, the update allows motorists to identify reported camera locations along roads and travel routes. However, it does not confirm whether every listed device is operational or reveal who can access the information collected.
MapQuest announced the feature on Bluesky, declaring: 'The Roads Have Eyes!'
The announcement comes as police use of vehicle-tracking technology faces growing scrutiny over privacy, access controls and potential misuse.
MapQuest Shows Drivers Where Surveillance Cameras Are Located
The Surveillance Layer is available through MapQuest's Android and iOS mobile apps. Users can open Map Options and enable Surveillance to display reported camera locations.
Eye-shaped icons identify surveillance equipment, while directional indicators show where some cameras are facing, according to Tom's Hardware.
MapQuest says the feature covers known cameras from Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions' Vigilant, Genetec, Axon, Axis Communications, Leonardo's ELSAG, Neology, Rekor, PlateSmart, Ubicquia and Verkada.
Other outdoor surveillance cameras may also appear.
MapQuest general manager Doug Berger told Business Insider that showing surveillance camera locations was among users' three most requested features. However, MapQuest has not publicly explained how it compiles and verifies its camera-location data.
The map may therefore be incomplete or contain outdated information.
What Flock Cameras Record About Drivers' Vehicles
Flock Safety's automated licence plate readers collect more than registration numbers.
They capture vehicle images and use software to identify details such as make, model, colour and licence plate information. Records also include the location and time of detection.
Police and other authorised users can search records they are permitted to access when investigating crimes or identifying vehicles of interest. Multiple sightings may help investigators reconstruct a vehicle's movements across different locations.
Privacy advocates warn that extensive location records can reveal people's routines, even when they are not suspected of wrongdoing.
Repeated journeys to workplaces, hospitals or residential areas could expose sensitive patterns of movement. Flock says its ALPR cameras do not use facial recognition and that customers control access to their data.
Under its evidence policy, the default retention period is seven days. Different periods may apply under customer agreements or applicable laws.
Extensions of up to one year that are not legally required must receive approval from an elected official or governing body, according to the company.
Growing Privacy Concerns Put Flock Cameras Under Scrutiny
Questions about access to vehicle-location records have prompted investigations and legal challenges across the United States.
An October Houston Chronicle investigation reported that a civilian employee working for Harris County Precinct 3 searched Flock's camera network 19 times between August and September 2025.
Some searches covered thousands of cameras, raising questions about oversight and access controls.
Precinct officials said the searches supported legitimate law enforcement investigations.
However, agencies involved in some cases said their records did not show requests for those searches, while another investigator did not recall requesting assistance.
Officials said access procedures had since changed and Precinct 3 staff no longer had access to the network. The reporting did not establish that the searches were unlawful.
Similar concerns have reached the courts.
On 18 November 2025, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California filed a lawsuit challenging San Jose's ALPR practices. The plaintiffs allege that warrantless police searches of historical vehicle-location records violate California's constitutional privacy protections.
The case remains listed as active, and the allegations have not been established by a final ruling.
Can MapQuest Help Drivers Avoid Being Tracked?
For privacy-conscious motorists, MapQuest's Surveillance Layer offers a way to identify reported roadside cameras before or during a journey. It makes monitoring equipment that might otherwise go unnoticed easier to locate.
However, seeing a camera on the map does not prevent it from recording a passing vehicle.
Coverage may be incomplete, and MapQuest has not announced an automatic camera-avoidance routing option. Drivers cannot rely on the feature to prevent their movements from being recorded.
MapQuest provides information about reported surveillance equipment, not protection against monitoring. Its update does not change how ALPR operators collect, retain, search or share vehicle records.
The wider debate concerns what happens after a vehicle is photographed.
Who should be allowed to search those records? How long should they remain accessible? And what safeguards can prevent misuse? MapQuest now gives drivers a clearer view of some cameras monitoring American roads.
Whether existing safeguards adequately protect vehicle-location data remains a far more difficult question.
