Flock Safety

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

---

This article is underdeveloped, and 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. Learn more ▼

Issues may include:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
• The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content

How you can help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

Flock Safety

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. 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 devices across the United States in 5,000 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" In March of 2025 Flock raised $275 million in a funding round bringing total value to $7.5 Billion. Several sources estimate total funding in the range of $650M to $950M+. Flock has claimed to have surpassed $300 million in ARR 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'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. 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) Judge Jamilah D. LeCruise stated that "A person doesn't surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into a public space" 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 person's 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 and private parties recurring fees for the ability to access the surveillance network and data. 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+ per year from the mass surveillance of the American public and the erosion of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. Furthermore their infrastructure could very easily lead to the degradation of First Amendment rights (Rights to free speech) and Ninth Amendment rights (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)

Main article: 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

1. Flock License Plate Readers