The short version
- Flock Safety is cutting data retention from 30 days to seven days for most records.
- CEO Garrett Langley admitted the company delayed implementing safeguards against police abuse.
- Civil liberties groups argue the new measures are voluntary and insufficient without judicial warrants.
Flock Safety, a major U.S. surveillance firm, is rolling out new safeguards to prevent the misuse of its license plate reader technology by law enforcement. The changes come after growing public backlash and reports that police have used the company’s network to track romantic partners, stalk strangers, and monitor individuals not suspected of wrongdoing. Garrett Langley, Flock’s founder and CEO, admitted in an interview with the BBC that the company took too long to implement these protections.
The most significant change involves data retention policies. Flock is reducing the number of days most data is retained from 30 days to just seven. Additionally, the company will automatically flag abnormal searches and uses of its system. These measures aim to limit the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct indiscriminate surveillance without specific justification.
Langley acknowledged that his initial reluctance to impose strict controls stemmed from a belief that it was not his role as a private company executive to dictate how police use their tools. 'Historically, my point of view... was, I don't know if I should be making these decisions,' Langley said. He noted that pressure from employees and communities eventually convinced him to adopt a stronger stance on privacy.
The backlash against Flock has intensified in recent months. At least 50 cities have cut ties with the company this year due to public concern over surveillance practices. However, Langley reported that 16 of those cities have since resumed services, and the company maintains a 7:1 ratio of new customers to lost ones. This suggests that while privacy concerns are significant, demand for the technology remains high among law enforcement agencies.
Specific cases of misuse have drawn particular attention. Police have used Flock cameras to track former and current romantic partners, and in one instance, a woman who had undergone an abortion was monitored. In Indiana, a man discovered through a public records request that police had set an alert for his vehicle despite him not being suspected of any crime. These incidents have fueled criticism from civil liberties advocates.
Cooper Quintin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) criticized Flock’s new changes as 'piecemeal, voluntary, and reversible.' He argued that simple feature updates can be circumvented and that meaningful privacy protection requires judicial warrants for invasive searches. The EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have long advocated for stricter legal requirements before police can access surveillance data.
Langley stated that he now agrees with these advocacy groups, acknowledging that police should need an active case number to search Flock’s data. 'They're right. I think it should be required,' he said. This shift in perspective marks a notable change for the company, which has previously resisted external pressure to limit law enforcement access.
The controversy has also affected Flock’s partnerships. Amazon’s Ring, a doorbell camera firm, canceled a partnership with Flock following an outcry over a Super Bowl advertisement that sparked concerns about unwanted surveillance. This high-profile break highlights the broader cultural shift toward greater scrutiny of private surveillance technologies.
As Flock implements these new safeguards, the effectiveness of the measures will be closely watched. Critics remain skeptical that voluntary changes will adequately protect privacy without legislative intervention. The company’s ability to balance law enforcement needs with public privacy concerns will likely continue to shape its relationship with both customers and communities.
The situation underscores the growing tension between security and privacy in the digital age. While Flock argues that its technology helps find stolen cars and missing people, the potential for abuse remains a significant concern. The coming months will reveal whether these new policies are sufficient to restore public trust or if further regulatory action is needed.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC Technology↗Flock boss admits surveillance firm took too long to act over police abuse
- AP News↗Flock announces changes amid backlash over its license plate reader network
- KERA News↗'Americans just don't want to be surveilled': Growing backlash against North Texas Flock cameras
