Surveillance technology company Flock is rolling out sweeping policy changes after investigative reports revealed that police officers across the United States misused its automatic license plate reader (ALPR) data to stalk former romantic partners and harass others. Chief Executive Garrett Langley publicly apologized and acknowledged that the company had been wrong to avoid taking responsibility for how law enforcement uses its products. "We got this one wrong," he said, vowing to implement reforms that could significantly alter how Flock operates.
The new measures will be introduced gradually over the coming weeks. The most significant change is that Audit Assistance, a feature that was previously optional, will now be required for every agency using Flock. Audit Assistance is designed to identify abnormal search behavior, such as repeatedly querying the same license plate without an official justification. When the system detects suspicious activity, it immediately locks the user out until an administrator reviews the logs. All users will also need to enter a case code before running a search, making it harder to use the system for personal reasons. Administrators can override the code requirement for emergencies like finding a missing child, but every override will be automatically flagged for later review.
Flock is also changing the default retention period for data collected from its ALPR cameras. Previously, the company stored location and plate data for 30 days. That default is now being cut to seven days, moving closer to recommendations made by civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Police departments can still choose to lengthen the retention period if they can justify it, and a new feature called Evidence Mode will preserve data tied to a specific investigation. In addition, the company is overhauling its data-sharing rules. In the past, agencies shared their entire Flock database with other agencies on an all-or-nothing basis. Now, they will be able to set granular permissions, allowing a neighboring police department to search for a homicide suspect while blocking access for immigration enforcement.
What prompted the changes
The policy overhaul comes after a series of alarming reports. In Braselton, Georgia, a police chief was accused of searching his ex-girlfriend's license plate more than 500 times over seven months. Local prosecutors in Riverside County, California, alleged that a former sheriff's deputy used Flock data to stalk his ex-girlfriend and look up information about the men she was dating. These reports are just the latest examples in a pattern of ALPR abuse documented by the Institute for Justice since 2021. The incidents have drawn renewed attention to the risks of mass surveillance and the way police can exploit access to location data.
Langley acknowledged that the company had been too passive in waiting for lawmakers to act. Flock had long argued that local governments should decide what guardrails are necessary, and that tools like Audit Assistance should be optional because departments had different needs. But since Audit Assistance became available in April, only about a third of agencies using Flock turned it on. Langley says that among those that did, the identification of abuse went up as expected. "This is such an obvious way to curb abuse," he said. "And I said, 'Fine. You know what? I think that's right, and we got this one wrong. We should make it a requirement.'"
How the reforms will work in practice
For a police department using Flock, the changes will be visible almost immediately. When an officer logs into the system, they will need to enter a valid case number tied to an ongoing investigation. If no case number is entered, the search will not run. If the search is conducted under an emergency override, the system will record the override and notify an administrator. The goal, according to Langley, is to create a clear trail that makes it easier to identify not just blatant abuse, but also patterns of behavior that might indicate an officer is gradually crossing a line.
Audit Assistance will automatically analyze search history and flag deviations from normal behavior. For example, a user who suddenly searches a specific address or license plate many times in a short period would be locked out. An administrator would then need to review the activity and decide whether to restore access or escalate the matter to internal affairs. This removes the burden of continuous manual monitoring, which many small departments lack the resources to do effectively.
Data sharing changes will also require agencies to make intentional choices. Instead of a simple toggle that shares all data with all agencies, administrators will need to specify which partner agencies can access their data and for what purpose. A county sheriff might grant a city police department access to search for a missing child, but restrict access for something like enforcing immigration laws. The system will log every cross-agency query and make sure it aligns with the sharing permissions.
These detailed controls are designed to address concerns that ALPR data can be repurposed for actions that the collecting agency did not intend. But they also add new layers of administrative complexity. Smaller agencies with fewer technology staff may struggle to keep up with the requirements. Langley says Flock has dedicated support teams to help agencies transition, and he believes the extra work is justified by the need to restore public confidence.
A change in tone
Langley has not always been conciliatory. In an interview last year, he described DeFlock, a website that maps Flock camera locations, as a "terroristic" group. In July, he apologized and called that characterization a "mistake." His recent comments reflect an acknowledgment that the company's technology has profound consequences. "You are going to see more officers fired and more officers arrested for abusing police power," he predicted. He said Audit Assistance would help departments identify problematic behavior without requiring manual review of thousands of logs.
Langley says his thinking evolved through conversations with community members, including at city council meetings and other public forums. He understands that many critics will not immediately trust his intentions. "All I guess I'm asking for is for a fair shot," he said. He still believes legislators should make key decisions about policing tools, and he hopes that Flock's changes will push rival ALPR companies to adopt similar protections. But he now concedes that waiting for regulation is not enough when harm is happening now.
Civil liberties groups are skeptical
The ACLU quickly issued an analysis of Flock's announcements. While the group called the shorter data retention period a potential "step in the right direction," it concluded that the changes appear "more focused on addressing a perceived PR problem than the significant harms its products create." The ACLU said the real impact will depend on how Evidence Mode is implemented and called for independent evaluation of Flock's auditing tools and case code requirements.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other advocacy groups have also been critical, accusing Flock of minimizing the privacy risks of ALPRs. They have noted that data collected by these cameras can be used to track people seeking reproductive care, journalists, protestors, and other vulnerable individuals. Flock has said officers are prohibited from using its system for searches related to reproductive care in states where such searches are restricted, but skeptics question whether voluntary policies are enforceable.
Understanding ALPR technology
Automatic license plate readers are a form of automated surveillance that has expanded rapidly across the U.S. The cameras capture license plate numbers and often log the precise time and location. Flock markets its system as a crime-fighting tool, pointing to statistics about stolen vehicles and missing persons. In July, according to Langley, Flock helped find almost a thousand missing people and more than 22,000 stolen cars. But the same data can reveal intimate details about people's lives, including where they sleep, work, worship, and meet with friends. The surveillance is often conducted without the knowledge or consent of the people being recorded.
The recent changes are part of a larger debate over ALPRs and other surveillance tools. Some cities have enacted ordinances restricting their use; the Los Angeles Police Department, for instance, recently suspended its use of Flock cameras. Meanwhile, new products and capabilities continue to emerge, including artificial intelligence-based analysis that can identify vehicle makes, models, and drivers. The tension between public safety benefits and privacy risks is likely to intensify as the technology becomes more common.
Langley's apology and the accompanying policy changes mark a notable shift for Flock, but it remains to be seen whether the reforms will satisfy the company's critics. The company says it is committed to making the changes work and to ensuring that law enforcement agencies are held accountable for misuse. For now, Langley says he hopes Flock can be given a fair chance to show that it is serious about reducing abuse, while acknowledging that trust must be earned.
Source:The Verge News