Flock Safety Tightens Privacy and Accountability After Criticism

Flock Safety changes system defaults in response to criticisms

Flock Safety Tightens Privacy and Accountability After Criticism

Flock Safety, the license plate reader company, is responding to criticism by overhauling its privacy and accountability safeguards. The company is cutting default data retention to seven days, introducing Evidence Mode for preserving data in active investigations, and requiring all law enforcement customers to adopt its Audit Assistance feature, which detects abnormal activity. Additionally, Flock is implementing proactive lockouts for suspicious behavior, mandatory case codes for searches, and mandatory multi-factor authentication. The company is also publishing a plain-English explanation of its contracts and an independent security review.

An alert is a lead, not a conclusion, which should be confirmed by an officer.
  1. jkestner

    Clearly, the stories in the press have hurt them, especially the police abuse. Requiring case codes is a good step, and proactively catching signs of abuse is a big change from "we're just an unopinionated tool; you should talk to your police department". They're still passing the buck on educating users on the limitations of their tool. I remain skeptical of any of their claims around data ownership.

    Reading these actions, you can pick apart how to circumvent them, and the security audit is still pending — let's see how damning of a report they'll allow to be released.

  2. pugworthy

    I would encourage anyone concerned about cameras in their town to explore the DeFlock website map (and app). It allows crowdsourced reporting of camera locations.

    I also would STRONGLY encourage people to actually go look for any ALPR reported in their town, because DeFlock also allows crowdsourced corrections to misreported instances.

    Where I live, it had been reported that we had 9 ALPR cameras, which in fact were not ALPR cameras but rather traffic management cameras - or in two cases not cameras at all. It gave the impression of a problem that didn't exist here.

  3. ryandvm

    Flock can make all the promises it wants, but the reality is that once growth stalls out on camera installations, which it must, shareholders will immediately insist that they pivot into other monetization schemes. There aren't really any laws holding them back, just their already weasel-worded contracts that they could easily renegotiate once the police departments are putting pressure on the city/county/state/federal legislative bodies.

    The possibilities are endless:

    - Is your employee visiting your competitors?

    - Where has your husband/wife/lover been?

    - What medical buildings has this person been to?

    - Does this person go to churches / gun ranges?

  4. tyrust

    > From the beginning, we have been clear that our customers own the data captured by their ALPR cameras. This has always been the case, but some of our contractual language has confused the public on this crucial point... The principle is simple: customers own the data, decide who can access it, and choose who they share it with.

    I'm one of the general public that is continually confused by their usage of the word "own". I can't imagine that their language update will make it any more clear.

    If the data is on Flock's servers (it is) and accessible by Flock (it is) then it is Flock who owns the data, not the PDs. Sure, they can allow the PDs to have say over what is done with the data, but ultimately Flock has the ability to use the data however they'd like.

    This is not hypothetical: Flock have used previously shared data with DHS [0] without the so-called owner's permission and use data for their AI training [1] without option to opt-out.

    Their definition of ownership is further contradicted later in this post:

    > we will now require case codes for all law enforcement searches by the end of the year.

    To be clear, I think this is a good change, but if PDs "own" their data, then they should be able to decide whether or not they want to use this feature.

    All in all, this is not ownership.

    [0] - https://apnews.com/article/immigration-abortion-license-plat...

    [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/apr/...

  5. thangalin

    https://i.ibb.co/WWWYznHX/flock-future.png ;-)

    See also: https://dave.autonoma.ca/blog/2019/06/06/web-of-knowledge/

More from this day

2026-08-13