Flock Safety, a company whose license plate reader technology has drawn increasing scrutiny from lawmakers, civil liberties advocates, and the public, announced Thursday it is revising its platform to address privacy concerns and documented abuses by some law enforcement users. The changes aim to quell growing backlash against the surveillance system.
While police departments have credited Flock's technology as a valuable tool for locating missing persons and apprehending suspects in violent crimes, critics argue its widespread use constitutes unconstitutional mass surveillance. The company's decision to implement changes comes after dozens of cities and agencies have ended their contracts with Flock due to worries about data access for immigration enforcement or unauthorized tracking. These concerns were amplified by numerous instances of law enforcement officers misusing the technology for personal searches.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley stated in an interview that many of the new product changes, which were previously optional safeguards, will become mandatory for all users by January 1, 2025. Among these mandatory updates is an audit tool designed to flag abnormal search behavior. According to the company, when the system detects such activity, the user will be locked out pending an internal review.
Flock, which asserts that its customers own the data collected by its cameras, is also reducing the standard data retention window from 30 days to seven. Data will still be allowed to be preserved for longer periods if it is tied to a case number and considered evidence.
Furthermore, law enforcement users will now be required to input a code from their records management system that links each search to a specific case before it can be conducted. Langley indicated that this measure, long advocated by civil liberties advocates, will give individual cities and departments greater control to use the system in ways consistent with community values. Emergency overrides will be automatically flagged for review.
Critics, however, expressed skepticism regarding the announced changes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) acknowledged that the shortened data retention window could be a positive step but described the other modifications as merely rehashing inadequate safety measures. Robert Frommer, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm involved in litigation over the technology, dismissed the changes as mere "window dressing" from a company under pressure. He argued that the fundamental issue remains that police officers, not judges with warrants, are making decisions about who to search.
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a professor at George Washington University Law School specializing in policing and surveillance, suggested that while the changes are an improvement, further scrutiny of the technology is necessary through sustained democratic engagement and judicial checks. Ferguson noted surprise at the specific backlash against Flock, given that similar technologies are available from other companies, but suggested Flock has become a focal point for public sentiment against constant surveillance.
The growing opposition has led to significant action; more than 50 agencies or jurisdictions have canceled, suspended, or rejected contracts with Flock, or deactivated their cameras since the beginning of the year, according to a tracker maintained by DeFlock, a grassroots advocacy group. Vandalism of Flock cameras has also been reported across the country.
In Congress, Republican representatives introduced at least two bills in July aimed at restricting the use of this technology. Law enforcement experts acknowledge the inherent tension between utilizing effective crime-fighting tools and protecting citizens' privacy rights. Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, described it as a balancing act, suggesting that departmental policies are more likely to strike this balance than company-initiated changes.
Flock Safety, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, frequently highlights its cameras' successes on its website, citing instances of finding missing seniors and apprehending car thieves. However, the technology has also been involved in high-profile cases, including the search for a suspect in a fatal shooting at Brown University and tracking a former North Carolina police officer accused of planning a mass shooting. In that particular case, a grand jury declined to bring charges, and the individual was taken to an out-of-state treatment facility.
Abuses of the system have also gained national attention. A report by The Washington Post earlier this month identified nearly 50 cases where police officers were accused of using the cameras for unauthorized purposes, often to track current or former romantic partners or family members. Most recently, four officers and two other employees of the Savannah Police Department in Georgia were fired for allegedly using the tool to search for friends and family and allowing an external agency officer access to the city's cameras. The Savannah department stated that it became aware of the misuse through Flock's voluntary audit function.
