Surveillance technology company Flock is overhauling how its license plate readers and related tools are used by police, following revelations that some officers exploited the system to stalk ex-romantic partners and other individuals. The company’s CEO, Garrett Langley, has offered a mea culpa, acknowledging that Flock bears more responsibility than it previously accepted for how law enforcement uses its products.
Flock, a company that installs solar-powered cameras and automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) in neighborhoods and along roads, allows police to search for specific license plates and track vehicle movements over time. The technology has been marketed as a way to solve crimes quickly, but civil liberties advocates have long warned that it enables mass surveillance of ordinary citizens who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. The new policy changes are an attempt to address those concerns.
Over the coming weeks, Flock will automatically enable a feature called Audit Assistance, which flags abnormal search behavior and locks out suspicious users until an administrator reviews their activity. The feature had been available since April, but only about a third of the agencies working with Flock enabled it on their own. The company says that among those that did, instances of abuse were detected at a higher rate, suggesting the tool works but was underutilized.
In addition, all users will be required to enter a case code when performing a search. That requirement is designed to prevent officers from running queries for personal reasons or other non-law-enforcement purposes. An administrator can override the requirement in an emergency, such as locating a missing child, but any such override will be automatically flagged for later review.
Data retention and sharing changes
Flock is also reducing the default length of time it stores data collected by its cameras and ALPRs from 30 days to seven days. The change aligns more closely with the recommendations of privacy advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which has long argued that prolonged retention of location data poses serious civil liberties risks.
Agencies will still have the option to extend the retention period if they have a specific policy in place. The company is also introducing an “Evidence Mode” that preserves searches tied to a specific case number, ensuring that relevant data is kept for investigations while unrelated information is deleted sooner.
Data sharing between agencies is also getting more flexible. Previously, a municipality that used Flock could share its data with other agencies only on an all-or-nothing basis. That meant if a city wanted to allow a neighboring police department to access its license plate data for a homicide investigation, it had to allow access for every other purpose as well. Now, agencies can set granular restrictions, such as permitting searches only for certain types of cases or prohibiting access for immigration enforcement.
Langley’s change of heart
In interviews, Langley acknowledged that the company had previously told lawmakers they were responsible for creating policies around how Flock tools should be used. He said he now believes that approach was insufficient, especially given the slow pace of regulation. “This is such an obvious way to curb abuse,” he said of requiring case codes. “And I said, ‘Fine. You know what? I think that’s right, and we got this one wrong. We should make it a requirement.’”
Langley said his thinking evolved after many conversations with communities and local officials around the country. He understands that critics may not trust his motives, saying, “All I guess I’m asking for is for a fair shot.” He still prefers that legislators make key decisions about how policing tools are used, but he now acknowledges that the company must also take steps to prevent harm while that process plays out.
He also pointed to the positive impact of Flock’s technology. According to Langley, in July alone, Flock helped locate almost a thousand missing people and more than 22,000 stolen cars. He said that scale of impact brings an obligation to ensure the technology is used in a way that aligns with the values of the communities it serves. “It took me maybe longer than it should have to realize the sheer impact of the company,” he said.
Cases that sparked the backlash
The policy changes come after a series of news reports detailed how individual officers across the country had allegedly used Flock for stalking and harassment. One police chief in Braselton, Georgia, reportedly searched his ex-girlfriend’s license plate more than 500 times over a seven-month period. In California, prosecutors accused a former Riverside County Sheriff’s Office deputy of using Flock data to stalk his ex-girlfriend and track men she was dating.
These incidents are not isolated. According to the nonprofit Institute for Justice, reports of ALPR abuse date back to at least 2021. The recent spate of cases has brought renewed public attention to the risks of widespread automatic license plate tracking, which most people are unaware they are subject to. In another case, a former officer was sentenced to prison for using police databases to harass women, according to court records. The frequency of such reports has fueled a growing backlash against ALPRs and led to proposals in several state legislatures to restrict their use.
Flock’s own data shows that abuse was more likely to be detected when agencies turned on Audit Assistance. The company says that identification of abuse predictably went up for departments that used the tool. Now that the feature is mandatory, Langley predicts, “you are going to see more officers fired and more officers arrested for abusing police power.” He noted that the tool will make it easier to surface suspicious behavior instead of requiring departments to manually comb through thousands of logs.
Civil liberties groups respond
The American Civil Liberties Union issued an analysis of Flock’s changes, expressing skepticism about the company’s motivations. The ACLU said the reforms appear “more focused on addressing a perceived PR problem than the significant harms its products create.” It acknowledged that reducing the default data retention period could be “a step in the right direction,” but noted that the real-world impact will depend on how Evidence Mode is implemented. The organization also called for independent evaluation of Flock’s auditing tools to determine whether they actually prevent abuse.
Other privacy and digital rights groups have also raised concerns about Flock’s technology. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has warned that ALPR data could be used to track people seeking abortions or visiting clinics. In the past, Flock has maintained that officers are prohibited from conducting searches related to reproductive care in states where such searches are restricted. But advocates point out that the restriction relies on the same officers who have already shown a willingness to abuse their access.
A history of combative rhetoric
Langley’s tone toward critics has shifted notably. In a Forbes interview last year, he referred to DeFlock, a website that tracks Flock cameras across the country, as a “terroristic” group. He later apologized in July and said that characterization was a “mistake.”
The company has also faced accusations that it misled the public and officials about the risks of its tools. Flock has reportedly chalked up some of these discrepancies to confusion over nuanced issues, and has said it is committed to clarifying its products’ capabilities. Still, the recurring incidents of misuse have led to questions about whether Flock should have acted sooner.
The new requirements represent the most significant step the company has taken to self-regulate. Whether they will satisfy critics remains uncertain, but the changes are likely to have an impact beyond Flock itself. Langley said he hopes that by making these tools mandatory, other companies in the ALPR space will be forced to adopt similar safeguards, raising the standard across the industry.
The rollout will occur in phases, with agencies receiving notifications about the new requirements in advance. Flock says it will provide training and support to help departments adjust. The company is also updating its terms of service to require agencies to enact their own policies around data retention and access. The moves signal a recognition that the surveillance industry must grapple with the consequences of its products more directly.
As Flock implements the changes, police departments across the country will have to adjust to the new rules. For some, the shift may be disruptive. But the company is betting that the long-term trust in its technology is worth the inconvenience. For now, the eyes of privacy advocates, police departments, and elected officials are on Flock. The company’s claim that it has learned from its mistakes will be tested by the effectiveness of its new safeguards in preventing the next scandal.
Source: The Verge News