Flock Safety is shortening data retention, requiring case codes for searches and expanding misuse-detection tools after mounting criticism over privacy risks and reports that some law enforcement personnel abused its nationwide license-plate camera network.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Flock Safety is introducing new privacy and accountability measures across its rapidly expanding network of automated license plate readers, including reducing its standard data-retention period from 30 days to seven and automatically restricting users whose searches appear abnormal.
The changes come as the private surveillance technology company faces growing scrutiny from elected officials, civil liberties advocates and communities concerned about how law enforcement agencies use and share information collected by its more than 119,000 cameras nationwide.
Flock said the changes include “enhanced privacy protections, strengthening of control for local law enforcement offices, and enhanced accountability measures,” according to a Thursday report by Fox Business.
One of the most significant changes involves how long information remains on company servers.
“To start, Flock is reducing its standard data retention window from 30 days to seven. Previously, all data captured by one of the company’s more than 119,000 cameras nationwide was deleted after the 30-day window,” according to the report. “Now, the company announced on Thursday that data will only live on Flock servers for one week.”
The company’s automated license plate readers capture vehicle information that can be searched by participating law enforcement agencies during investigations.
While the standard retention period will shrink substantially, agencies will still have a way to preserve specific information for longer periods when an investigation requires it.
Flock is creating a feature known as “Evidence Mode,” which will allow law enforcement agencies to retain information beyond the standard seven-day period when permitted under state and local policies.
The company says the feature is intended to give investigators additional time when evidence must be preserved while limiting routine long-term storage of data that is not tied to an active case.
Flock is also giving individual law enforcement agencies greater authority to decide what types of investigations other jurisdictions can conduct using cameras within their communities.
“For example, City A could allow City B to search its cameras for a stolen vehicle or violent crime while blocking searches related to immigration enforcement,” the company said.
That change would allow municipalities to establish boundaries around how information collected by their local camera networks is shared with outside agencies.
The reforms follow increasing resistance to Flock’s expansion from officials who argue that stronger constitutional and privacy protections should be established before the technology becomes more widespread.
Knox County, Tennessee, Mayor Glen Jacobs has emerged as a prominent advocate for a national moratorium on further deployment of the cameras until additional safeguards are established.
Civil liberties organizations have also questioned whether Flock’s newly announced policies go far enough.
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the reforms, saying they “seem to be a thinly veiled PR attempt to counter communities’ genuine privacy concerns with its mass surveillance system with largely hollow security promises rather than an earnest effort to address them.”
Concerns have extended beyond broad questions about government surveillance.
Reports that some law enforcement officers used Flock technology to stalk romantic partners have intensified scrutiny of internal controls governing who can conduct searches and why.
Several of the company’s new safeguards are specifically designed to identify and stop potentially improper searches.
Flock recently introduced a system known as Audit Assistance, which monitors user behavior and flags search activity considered abnormal.
“A recently released framework called Audit Assistance flags abnormal search behavior. Previously, the feature was optional, with Flock reporting that a third of agencies turned it on,” according to the report.
The company said that system will now become standard for every law enforcement agency using its technology.
Flock said it is “making it standard for every law enforcement customer. When a system detects abnormal activity, the user is locked out in real time until an administrator reviews the searches. Flock is moving to more proactively address and root out misuse of technology.”
Under the new policy, law enforcement personnel will also be required to provide a reason whenever they conduct a search.
Flock began offering an optional requirement for case codes in July 2025. The company is now making those codes mandatory for searches conducted through its system.
An override will remain available for what Flock describes as “genuine emergencies,” including searches involving missing children.
“A search without a reason is a search that shouldn’t happen in the first place, and now Flock’s system automatically treats it that way,” the company told Fox Business.
The requirement is intended to create a clearer record of why a search was performed and make it easier for supervisors to identify activity unrelated to legitimate law enforcement work.
The company continues to defend the value of its technology despite the criticism.
Flock says its systems were involved in approximately 1 million investigations last year and helped authorities locate about 10,000 missing people.
Law enforcement agencies that use automated license plate readers have frequently cited their ability to identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects and assist in missing-person cases when responding to privacy concerns.
Critics, however, argue that the same network can allow authorities to reconstruct vehicle movements across communities and potentially share information across jurisdictions in ways residents do not expect.
The latest reforms attempt to address several of those concerns simultaneously by shortening routine data storage, allowing communities to limit cross-jurisdictional searches, requiring documented reasons for queries and automatically flagging unusual activity.
Whether those changes will satisfy critics remains uncertain.
The ACLU has already characterized the measures as inadequate, while officials such as Jacobs continue to argue that broader legal safeguards should govern the technology before further deployment.
For Flock, the changes represent an effort to retain the investigative capabilities that have made its cameras popular with law enforcement while placing tighter restrictions on how the resulting information can be stored, searched and shared.
Original article
Comments