Flock Safety is tightening access to its nationwide network of license plate readers, but Flock has not convinced critics the changes go far enough. The company now requires officers to enter a criminal case number before searching location data. This rule was optional last year but is now mandatory. Because Flock does not verify those case numbers, however, civil liberties groups say the safeguard is easy to bypass.

What You Need to Know

Flock Safety operates roughly 120,000 cameras that feed a searchable database of vehicle locations. Concerns over officer stalking and mass surveillance have led at least 30 cities to drop Flock contracts in the past year. The ACLU and activists from DeFlock are pressing for independent oversight. The new rules aim to curb abuse but do not address the network's fundamental scale.

New Requirements and Persistent Gaps

Flock is also expanding an automatic auditing system that flags suspicious search activity to administrators. This feature, introduced as an option last year, is now mandatory. But Flock has not disclosed the tool’s accuracy or opened it to independent researchers. Some departments previously mocked similar prompts: at one Oregon agency, officers entered “hehehe” 20 times when asked to state a search reason.

  • Case number requirement: Officers must enter a criminal case number for each search, but Flock does not verify its validity.
  • Auditing expansion: Automatic alerts for suspicious searches are now mandatory, but accuracy and independence remain unknown.
  • Data retention recommendation: Flock now suggests 7-day retention instead of 30, though agencies can choose to keep data longer.

Backlash From All Sides

Criticism of Flock has grown across the political spectrum. Tucker Carlson has called the technology part of a “slave state.” Municipalities are moving to ban license plate readers or switching to competitors like Axon and Motorola. The activist group DeFlock puts the number of canceled contracts higher than the 30 that NPR confirmed. Flock CEO Garrett Langley has said those cancellations represent a small fraction of the 5,000 agencies still using the system.

Chad Marlow, a senior policy counsel at the ACLU, argues the backlash stems not from isolated abuses but from the erosion of privacy at scale. Marlow says officers can investigate people without a warrant simply by querying the data trove. Langley, however, traces the backlash to different root causes, including misinformation. The divide highlights a fundamental disagreement over how much surveillance is acceptable.

Why This Matters

The changes at Flock Safety reflect a broader struggle over the reach of police surveillance technology. If the company cannot demonstrate effective safeguards, more cities may turn to legislation or alternative vendors. The ACLU and groups like DeFlock are pushing for independent audits, which Flock has so far refused. With cameras in most U.S. communities, the outcome could set a precedent for how location data is accessed and protected nationwide.