Following dozens of reported cases of police abuse, including the arrest of three Georgia deputies on Monday and the investigation of a Massachusetts officer, Flock Safety announced new policies for the use of its AI surveillance cameras on Thursday.
Flock Safety cameras can track license plates, car features and, on the right models, humans as well. They can also listen for disturbances such as gunshots. These camera networks have drawn scrutiny over their potential to enable casual surveillance of communities, as well as documented abuses, including police using the systems to monitor former partners or inventing pretexts for searches that result in information being shared with agencies such as ICE, as I detail in my full guide here. That’s led to protests, Flock contract cancellations and in some cases, cities blocking cameras by wrapping them in trash bags because Flock won’t take them down.
This is Flock’s largest response to these issues that I’ve seen to date, with a series of changes governing how police can use its surveillance systems. Most of these changes won’t be required until the end of the year, and some won’t affect existing contracts. Flock has also created exceptions to the new rules, leaving police and sheriff’s departments responsible for enforcing them while giving them mechanisms to continue using the cameras as they see fit.
According to a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union, Flock operates more than 120,000 automatic license plate readers in at least 6,000 cities.
“Flock has attempted this before, and the security measure failed because police were easily able to circumvent the system’s requirement that they input the purpose of their search,” the ACLU says. It encourages Flock to use an independent evaluator to oversee its regulations.
Representatives from Flock Safety didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Loopholes abound for Flock’s new regulations
Every new Flock rule announced seems to come with a caveat. One of the biggest changes is a reduction in the length of time Flock retains camera data — and, consequently, how long that data can be used for searches — from 30 days to seven. But Flock also says that “Existing customers will keep their current, democratically approved retention periods,” meaning most users won’t see the change for some time.
There’s also a new evidence mode that ignores the new retention period, allowing police to hold data indefinitely while pursuing active investigations of their choice.
Flock is also adding a feature called “offense filtering,” which can limit the specific Flock camera information that outside agencies have access to. This doesn’t change much because police departments can set their own limits when sharing data. As previously reported, police departments have already violated state laws by sharing information with ICE, the FBI and other agencies.
Another change makes Flock’s new audit assistance feature mandatory by 2027. Audit assistance flags suspicious camera use, such as repeatedly searching for the same license plate. It’s unclear how the system could differentiate between tracking a stolen car for a period of time and stalking someone. When it flags suspicious behavior, the audit assistance tool locks the user out of the system and requires an administrator review.
Another change requires users to enter a case code for every law enforcement search, in addition to the existing option to provide a reason for the search. There is an exception for emergency searches, which can still be conducted without that information but are flagged for administrator review.
So who will conduct these reviews? I asked Flock, but have not yet received a response. Based on the company’s documentation, the administrator appears to be the person designated under the agency’s contract with Flock — potentially a sheriff or police chief, including officials in positions where Flock cameras have previously been misused. That raises questions about whether the new safeguards provide meaningful independent oversight or simply place accountability back with the same agencies responsible for using the systems.
Changes like these place greater responsibility on departments to police their own use of the technology, while potentially limiting Flock Safety’s responsibility for how its surveillance systems are used. At the same time, Flock has built in several exceptions that allow departments to bypass the new requirements, with the conditions for those exceptions appearing to depend largely on individual agency policies rather than clear, uniform standards.
These rules apply only to law enforcement. Cities, neighborhoods and businesses that contract with Flock don’t need to follow the new regulations. Recent research has also found error rates ranging from 30% to 70% in Flock camera systems, raising broader questions about the reliability of this increasingly widespread surveillance technology.
See full bio