Flock Safety: Difference between revisions

===Privacy===

Critics, including civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrantless searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions, and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by ALPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025. Readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for further developments.<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 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |date=2025-10-14 |accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> The system does not offer a public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=2025-10-21 |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |accessdate=2025-10-30 |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights}}</ref> This raised concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

===Business Model===

Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle “[[Device fingerprint|fingerprints]]”—including make, model, color, bumper stickers, damages, and other distinguishing characteristics—in addition to license plates,<ref name=":4" /> with footage retained for 30 days before deletion.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-03-11 |title=How Flock Safety Eliminates Neighborhood Crime While Protecting Resident Privacy |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/how-flock-safety-protects-resident-privacy |url-status=live |access-date=2025-12-01 |website=Flock Safety Blog}}</ref> The company’s network benefits from strong network effects. Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Investing in Flock Safety |url=https://a16z.com/investing-in-flock-safety/ |website=Andreessen Horowitz}}</ref> As cameras are deployed across more jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool.

===Wrongful package theft accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (September 2025)===

In September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the robbery.<ref name=":5">{{cite web | title=Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence | website=Denverite | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://denverite.com/2025/10/27/bow-mar-flock-cameras-accusation/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure," and bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "you can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."<ref name=":6">{{cite web | title=After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence | website=The Colorado Sun | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://coloradosun.com/2025/10/28/flock-camera-police-colorado-columbine-valley/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating, "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."<ref>{{cite web | title=Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft | website=KDVR | date=2025-10-28 | url=https://kdvr.com/news/local/police-use-flock-cameras-to-wrongfully-accuse-denver-woman-of-theft/ | accessdate=2025-10-30}}</ref> Elser was compelled to compile extensive exculpatory evidence, including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor. She ultimately submitted a 7-page affidavit and a voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.<ref name=":5" /> The summons was only voided after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing, "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued." However, the department provided neither an apology nor an explanation.<ref name=":6" />  

===Denver contract and surveillance controversy (Ongoing)===  

===Data sharing with federal immigration authorities (Ongoing)===

===Paused federal pilots and systemic data sharing with federal agencies (August 2025)===

===Consumer complaints about business practices===