LAPD Ends Flock Safety Contract Over Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns
LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
The Los Angeles Police Department is letting its contract with Flock Safety expire due to serious concerns about civil liberties and data privacy. As one of Flock's largest customers, the LAPD cited the need to resolve issues regarding data collection and security before renewing. This move follows similar actions by other cities and highlights growing backlash against license plate surveillance systems that have faced scrutiny for errors and security lapses.
This contract is not being renewed because of serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues, particularly around privacy and the data that is being collected from these cameras.
- etdznots
The best part is that flock owns the cameras and the poles so even when the contract expires the cameras keep running and recording data that flock can sell to e.g. CHP, LASD, FBI, Palantir; and LAPD can just call them and access the data
the flock scam was engineered to be resilient to political pressure by giving departments and jursidictions this fake exit ability while the data continues to be harvested, it is a noose that only tightens; the amount of flock cameras recording only ever goes up not down.
- declan_roberts
I don't understand flock cameras in high crime areas. Every time somebody commits a heinous crime it's always like "they were arrested 72 times and were well known by the police"
What's the point in helping the police catch criminals when they don't do anything after the fact!
- superkuh
This is good. But unfortunately it doesn't mean the Flock cameras will be removed because the city doesn't own them. Flock does. And Flock will likely want to keep them there. In other cities when the contract is canceled or let expire Flock prevented those cities from removing the cameras. Some had to resort to covering them with trash bags because they could not legally remove them. This happened in Dayton, Ohio and many other cities. https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/cities-covering-flock-surv...
> "Some locals have taken matters into their own hands by dismantling Flock cameras and covering them with trash bags"
This techcrunch article incorrectly characterizes this need and required behavior as something done by random citizens. But it is actually the cities themselves having to resort to it, totally officially and legally, because of Flock behaving badly.
- AbrahamParangi
it needs to be illegal for the government to buy data or intelligence that it could not otherwise legally collect itself.
- someperson
Are there any privacy-first security camera provider where it's the city that manages data access and uses it purely for local law enforcement purposes?
- kotaKat
Fun fact: When they switch to Axon Outposts instead, just know that they have Amazon Sidewalk modules inside them, too for backdoor C2 to Axon.
(Go check the FCC docs for X4GS06009 and note that there's a Quectel KG100S sitting on the power supply board. https://fccid.io/X4GS06009)
- cdrnsf
What's really surprising is that it's the LAPD, of all agencies, that are making this decision while violating civil rights concerns. https://lapublicpress.org/2025/11/lapd-settlements/
> The top three payout categories totaled $345 million. Civil rights violations, police shootings, excessive use of force, and illegal searches collectively accounted for $183 million, almost half of the claim amounts.
Plenty of civil rights violations, but Flock is too much even for them.
- forks
- lowmagnet
They aren't crash compliant, aren't tagged with inspection stickers for signage, and the county/state road agencies could remove them for that alone.
- hinkley
One of the best sound designs ever invented was the 'you just lost' melody created for The Price is Right.
That is not a non sequitur.