Flock Safety: Difference between revisions
m Added Logo |
Wrote foundation |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com | |Website=https://www.flocksafety.com | ||
|Description=Flock safety is a surveillance Technology company which utilizes legal loopholes to implement mass surveillance across the United States. | |Description=Flock safety is a surveillance Technology company which utilizes legal loopholes to implement mass surveillance across the United States. | ||
|Logo=Flock-Saftey-logo.jpeg}} | |Logo=Flock-Saftey-logo.jpeg}}Flock Safety is the creator and operator of the flock cameras. The flock cameras have many functionalities including but not limited to: Scanning vehicle license plates; logging make, model, color, and "distinguishing features" of vehicles; gunshot detection and alleged facial recognition. They operate a network of 40,000<ref>{{Cite web |last=Polcyn |first=Bryan |date=24 Oct 2023 |title=Mapping Flock cameras, police 'secrecy' varies by department |url=https://www.fox6now.com/news/mapping-flock-cameras-police-secrecy-department |website=Fox 6 Milwaukee}}</ref> devices across the United States in 5,000<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 May 2025 |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution}}</ref> communities. They often operate under private contracts such as with HOA's and commercial contracts, and public contracts with local law enforcement. Flock safety justifies the legality of its mass surveillance systems on the basis of the legal principles that individuals have "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces." Since their surveillance systems are deployed on roads that are considered public courts have generally held that their mass surveillance does not violate privacy rights. The company "processes over 20 billion scans of vehicles per month"<ref>{{Cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network}}</ref> In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding?utm_source=chatgpt.com |archive-date=13 Mar 2025}}</ref> in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion<ref name=":0" />. Several sources estimate total funding in the range of $650M to $950M+<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hu |first=Crystal |date=13 Mar 2025 |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/?utm_source=chatgpt.com}}</ref>. Flock has claimed to have surpassed $300 million in ARR<ref name=":0" /> as of 2025 and cited 70% year over year growth. They are estimated to have over 1,000 employees. | ||
{{ | |||
==Consumer-impact summary== | ==Consumer-impact summary== | ||
{{ | |||
=== Public Privacy === | |||
Privacy violations are many and are obvious, the continuous tracking of the American public, the permanent surveillance archive, the logging of "distinguishing features on vehicles", timestamps, and the searchable database all, while indeed in conjunction with the notion that privacy cannot be assumed in public spaces, violate a person right to privacy. Traditional observation in public spaces, which doesn't violate Fourth Amendment Rights, is fundamentally different from the generation of a permanent searchable archive that is created with the flock cameras. Critics argue that the large scale data aggregation transforms the fleeting public exposure into a detailed log of personal behavior, which is able to expose religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliations, medical conditions, and other highly personal aspects of identity, all of which are traditionally protected by the Fourth Amendment. The system also offers no public opt out options forcing all users of the road to have their locations tracked and logged raising more risks of misuse, profiling, and long term monitoring. U.S. courts have traditionally held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy however some rulings do emphasize that this principle does not strip a citizen of their constitutional rights. In rulings such as Carpenter v. United States (2018)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Common Wealth v. Bell 2024 |url=https://www.richmondbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/900-CRIMINAL-Cameras-and-the-Constitution-Materials.pdf}}</ref> Judge Jamilah D. LeCruise stated that "A person doesn't surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into a public space"<ref>{{Cite web |title=CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf}}</ref> reflecting the ongoing public sentiment over the use of automated indefinite surveillance records. Furthermore, the use of flock cameras by law enforcement is a direct violations of a persons Fourth Amendment rights as the data that the police department can access are things which would traditionally need a warrant to access. | |||
=== Business Model === | |||
Flock Safety operates a "surveillance as a service" model where the company owns, deploys, and maintains its cameras and sensor infrastructure then charges municipalities, law enforcement, HOAs, business ad private parties recurring fees for the ability to access the surveillance network and data. This model monetizes and subsides the mass surveillance of the American public partially with tax dollars. Unfortunately they have learned to take advantage of the American system and have lined their pockets to the tune of $300,000,000+<ref name=":0" /> per year from the mass surveillance of the American public and the erosion of the Americans Fourth amendment rights. Furthermore their infrastructure could very easily lead to the degradation of First (Rights to free speech) and Ninth (rights not explicitly stated in the constitution are still retained by the people). | |||
==Incidents== | ==Incidents== | ||
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]]. | This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]]. | ||
=== | ===Incident One (''Sep 18 2025'')=== | ||
{{Main| | {{Main|Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says}} | ||
A new lawsuit in Norfolk, Virginia shows just how invasive Flock Safety’s cameras are: 176 of them tracked a veteran’s car more than 500 times in a two months and his co-plaintiff’s nearly 850 times in the same time span. The city is paying Flock $2.2 million in taxpayer money for this system which works against the tax payer. This same system which costs Norfolk $2.2 Million quietly logs each persons movements without warrants or probable suspicion. Flock markets itself as a “safety network,” but civil rights groups warn it’s really building a massive, centralized surveillance database that police can tap into. It is a mass spying network that is used on ordinary people who’ve done nothing wrong, all to fuel Flock’s growing business. | |||
... | |||
== | == See also == | ||
# [[Flock License Plate Readers]] | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | |||
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]] | [[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]] | ||
Revision as of 05:54, 25 September 2025
| Basic information | |
|---|---|
| Founded | 2017 |
| Legal Structure | Private |
| Industry | Surveillance Technology |
| Official website | https://www.flocksafety.com |
Flock Safety is the creator and operator of the flock cameras. The flock cameras have many functionalities including but not limited to: Scanning vehicle license plates; logging make, model, color, and "distinguishing features" of vehicles; gunshot detection and alleged facial recognition. They operate a network of 40,000[1] devices across the United States in 5,000[2] communities. They often operate under private contracts such as with HOA's and commercial contracts, and public contracts with local law enforcement. Flock safety justifies the legality of its mass surveillance systems on the basis of the legal principles that individuals have "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces." Since their surveillance systems are deployed on roads that are considered public courts have generally held that their mass surveillance does not violate privacy rights. The company "processes over 20 billion scans of vehicles per month"[3] In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million[4] in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion[4]. Several sources estimate total funding in the range of $650M to $950M+[5]. Flock has claimed to have surpassed $300 million in ARR[4] as of 2025 and cited 70% year over year growth. They are estimated to have over 1,000 employees.
Consumer-impact summary
Public Privacy
Privacy violations are many and are obvious, the continuous tracking of the American public, the permanent surveillance archive, the logging of "distinguishing features on vehicles", timestamps, and the searchable database all, while indeed in conjunction with the notion that privacy cannot be assumed in public spaces, violate a person right to privacy. Traditional observation in public spaces, which doesn't violate Fourth Amendment Rights, is fundamentally different from the generation of a permanent searchable archive that is created with the flock cameras. Critics argue that the large scale data aggregation transforms the fleeting public exposure into a detailed log of personal behavior, which is able to expose religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliations, medical conditions, and other highly personal aspects of identity, all of which are traditionally protected by the Fourth Amendment. The system also offers no public opt out options forcing all users of the road to have their locations tracked and logged raising more risks of misuse, profiling, and long term monitoring. U.S. courts have traditionally held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy however some rulings do emphasize that this principle does not strip a citizen of their constitutional rights. In rulings such as Carpenter v. United States (2018)[6] Judge Jamilah D. LeCruise stated that "A person doesn't surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into a public space"[7] reflecting the ongoing public sentiment over the use of automated indefinite surveillance records. Furthermore, the use of flock cameras by law enforcement is a direct violations of a persons Fourth Amendment rights as the data that the police department can access are things which would traditionally need a warrant to access.
Business Model
Flock Safety operates a "surveillance as a service" model where the company owns, deploys, and maintains its cameras and sensor infrastructure then charges municipalities, law enforcement, HOAs, business ad private parties recurring fees for the ability to access the surveillance network and data. This model monetizes and subsides the mass surveillance of the American public partially with tax dollars. Unfortunately they have learned to take advantage of the American system and have lined their pockets to the tune of $300,000,000+[4] per year from the mass surveillance of the American public and the erosion of the Americans Fourth amendment rights. Furthermore their infrastructure could very easily lead to the degradation of First (Rights to free speech) and Ninth (rights not explicitly stated in the constitution are still retained by the people).
Incidents
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the Flock Safety category.
Incident One (Sep 18 2025)
A new lawsuit in Norfolk, Virginia shows just how invasive Flock Safety’s cameras are: 176 of them tracked a veteran’s car more than 500 times in a two months and his co-plaintiff’s nearly 850 times in the same time span. The city is paying Flock $2.2 million in taxpayer money for this system which works against the tax payer. This same system which costs Norfolk $2.2 Million quietly logs each persons movements without warrants or probable suspicion. Flock markets itself as a “safety network,” but civil rights groups warn it’s really building a massive, centralized surveillance database that police can tap into. It is a mass spying network that is used on ordinary people who’ve done nothing wrong, all to fuel Flock’s growing business.
See also
References
- ↑ Polcyn, Bryan (24 Oct 2023). "Mapping Flock cameras, police 'secrecy' varies by department". Fox 6 Milwaukee.
- ↑ "City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution". 28 May 2025.
- ↑ "Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide".
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 "Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology".
{{cite web}}:|archive-date=requires|archive-url=(help) - ↑ Hu, Crystal (13 Mar 2025). "US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D".
- ↑ "Common Wealth v. Bell 2024" (PDF).
- ↑ "CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES" (PDF).