Flock Safety: Difference between revisions
Removed tangent from opening paragraph. Removed tangents from consumer-impact summary. Other misc. |
m →Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (18 Sep 2025): citation |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
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 and private parties recurring fees for the ability to access the surveillance network and data{{Citation needed}}. This model monetizes and subsidizes 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 with $300,000,000+<ref name=":0" /> per year from the mass surveillance of the American public. | 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 and private parties recurring fees for the ability to access the surveillance network and data{{Citation needed}}. This model monetizes and subsidizes 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 with $300,000,000+<ref name=":0" /> per year from the mass surveillance of the American public. | ||
== Surveillance technology == | ==Surveillance technology== | ||
''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]'' | ''See: [[Flock license plate readers]]'' | ||
{{Incomplete section}} | {{Incomplete section}} | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
{{Incomplete section}} | {{Incomplete section}} | ||
== Lawsuits == | ==Lawsuits== | ||
===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')=== | ===Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (''18 Sep 2025'')=== | ||
A lawsuit<ref>{{Cite_web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 | A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months<ref>{{Cite_web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref>. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual". | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 00:33, 27 October 2025
⚠️ Article status notice: This article has been marked as incomplete
This article needs additional work for its sourcing and verifiability to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. In particular:
- LPR's are only one of Flock's products. Article must contain more information.
This notice will be removed once the issue/s highlighted above have been addressed and sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the discord and post to the #appeals channel.
Learn more ▼
❗Article Status Notice: Inappropriate Tone/Word Usage
This article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Specifically it uses wording throughout that is non-compliant with the Editorial guidelines of this wiki.
Learn more ▼
.svg){kind=logo}
| Basic information | |
|---|---|
| Founded | 2017 |
| Legal Structure | Private |
| Industry | Surveillance Technology |
| Also known as | |
| Official website | https://www.flocksafety.com |
Flock Safety is the creator and operator of surveillance technology. Flock cameras are surveillance cameras featuring many functionalities, including but not limited to: Scanning vehicle license plates; logging make, model, color, and "distinguishing features" of vehicles, gunshot detection and, 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.
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
Privacy violations
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's 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 can expose religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political affiliations, medical conditions, and other highly personal aspects of identity, all traditionally protected by the Fourth Amendment[citation needed]. 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.
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 and private parties recurring fees for the ability to access the surveillance network and data[citation needed]. This model monetizes and subsidizes 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 with $300,000,000+[4] per year from the mass surveillance of the American public.
Surveillance technology
See: Flock license plate readers
This section is incomplete. This notice can be deleted once all the placeholder text has been replaced.
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.
This section is incomplete. This notice can be deleted once all the placeholder text has been replaced.
Lawsuits
Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (18 Sep 2025)
A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months[6]. The 2nd plaintiff in the case had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to Norfolk Police Department, in a deal costing $2.2m, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and at present there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is asking for the plaintiff's data to be deleted and the cameras disabled, arguing that these are an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and constitute a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual".
See also
References
- ↑ Polcyn, Bryan (24 Oct 2023). "Mapping Flock cameras, police 'secrecy' varies by department". Fox 6 Milwaukee. Retrieved 26 Sep 2025.
- ↑ "City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution". Flock Safety. 28 May 2025. Retrieved 26 Sep 2025.
- ↑ "Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide". Flock Safety. Retrieved 26 Sep 2025.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 "Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology". 13 Mar 2025. Retrieved 26 Sep 2025.
- ↑ Hu, Crystal (13 Mar 2025). "US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D". Reuters. Retrieved 26 Sep 2025.
- ↑ Collier, Kevin (2025-09-18). "Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-10-08. Retrieved 2025-10-26.