Surveillance technology company Flock is implementing sweeping changes to its automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems after a series of investigative reports revealed that some law enforcement officers had been using the tools to stalk and harass their ex-partners. CEO Garrett Langley is publicly admitting fault, telling reporters that the company “got this one wrong” and taking responsibility for how its products are deployed.
Over the coming weeks, Flock will begin rolling out updates that include making Audit Assistance, a previously optional feature, mandatory for all users. The tool flags abnormal search behavior and immediately locks out suspicious accounts until an administrator reviews activity. In addition, every user will be required to enter a case code when running a search, a move intended to curb personal or malicious queries. Administrators can override the case code requirement for emergencies such as locating a missing child, but any such override will automatically be flagged for review.
Key policy changes
The changes do not stop at search protections. Flock is also reducing the default period for retaining data collected by its ALPRs from 30 days to just seven days, aligning more closely with recommendations from privacy advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Police departments can still choose to extend that retention period, or they can use a new feature called Evidence Mode, which preserves searches tied specifically to a documented case number. This gives agencies flexibility while creating a clear audit trail for legitimate investigations.
Another significant shift involves data sharing between agencies. Previously, individual localities could share their Flock data with other police departments on an all-or-nothing basis. Under the new system, agencies can set granular limits. For instance, one department might allow another to search its data for a homicide suspect while prohibiting access for immigration enforcement. This addresses long-standing concerns that data collected by local police could be used for federal immigration crackdowns or other purposes unrelated to the original collection.
Reaction from the ACLU
After Flock announced the updates, the ACLU issued an analysis expressing doubt about the company's motivations. The organization said the changes appear “more focused on addressing a perceived PR problem than the significant harms its products create.” While acknowledging that the shorter data retention period could be a “step in the right direction,” the ACLU cautioned that the actual impact will depend on how Evidence Mode and the audit tools are implemented. The group also called for independent review of Flock's new systems to determine whether they genuinely prevent misuse or merely create a false sense of security.
Incidents that sparked the changes
The policy overhaul follows a wave of public reports about officers allegedly using Flock technology for stalking. In Braselton, Georgia, a police chief reportedly searched his ex-girlfriend's license plate more than 500 times over the course of seven months. The Washington Post first reported the incident, which became a national symbol of the dangers of unregulated surveillance tools. In California, prosecutors accused a former Riverside County Sheriff's Office deputy of using Flock data to stalk and harass his ex-girlfriend, including looking up license plate information on men she was dating. Local outlet KESQ reported those allegations.
Reports of Flock and other ALPR abuse date back to at least 2021, according to the nonprofit Institute for Justice. The recent spate of incidents has pushed these concerns into the mainstream, prompting Flock to take action. Notably, since Audit Assistance launched as a voluntary feature in April, only a third of agencies working with Flock had enabled it. The company says that among those who did, identification of suspected misuse predictably increased. Now that the feature is mandatory, Langley predicts the consequences will be swift: “You are going to see more officers fired and more officers arrested for abusing police power.”
A shift in company philosophy
In the past, Langley has taken a combative stance toward critics, often arguing that local policymakers should decide what guardrails are appropriate for Flock's tools. He repeatedly punted responsibility to lawmakers, insisting that regulation should come from legislation rather than the company itself. But with little such regulation materializing, Langley says he has changed his mind. “This is such an obvious way to curb abuse,” he said, referring to the tool that lets agency administrators require case codes for searches. “And I said, ‘Fine. You know what? I think that’s right, and we got this one wrong. We should make it a requirement.’”
The tone shift is notable. In a Forbes interview last year, Langley called DeFlock, a website that tracks Flock's technologies across the country, a “terroristic” group. In July, he apologized and called that characterization a “mistake.” Groups like the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have also accused Flock of misleading the public and officials about the risks of its tools, warning that they could be used to track women seeking abortions or other constitutionally protected activities. In at least one case, Flock reportedly attributed the misleading statements to confusion over a nuanced issue. Separately, the company has said officers are prohibited from performing searches related to reproductive care in states where such searches are restricted.
Background on Flock and ALPRs
Flock is one of the largest providers of automated license plate reader technology in the United States. Its solar-powered cameras are mounted on poles and streetlights, capturing high-resolution images of every license plate that passes by. The system logs the plate number, the time, and the location, then stores it in a cloud database searchable by law enforcement agencies. Police departments use Flock to track stolen vehicles, locate missing persons, and investigate serious crimes. However, the technology has drawn criticism for creating a surveillance network that can track individuals' movements over months or even years, revealing sensitive details about their lives, associations, and routines.
The company has expanded rapidly. Its cameras are now deployed in thousands of cities and towns across the country, often with little public scrutiny. Local officials typically sign contracts with Flock after minimal debate, swayed by promises of helping solve crimes like car theft and kidnapping. But privacy advocates have long warned that ALPR systems can be easily abused by insiders with access to the data. The recent incidents of officers stalking romantic partners are evidence of those risks, but experts say they are likely just a fraction of the true scale of misuse because audits have been voluntary or nonexistent.
Langley's evolving perspective
Langley says his approach has evolved through frequent conversations with communities around the country, including at local city council meetings. He acknowledges that many critics will not immediately trust his intentions. “All I guess I’m asking for is for a fair shot,” he said. He still believes legislators should make key decisions about how policing tools should be used, and he hopes that these new proposals will pressure competing surveillance companies to adopt similar guardrails. But he now publicly admits that waiting for legislation could take years, and that the company bears some responsibility for how its technology is deployed in the meantime.
This change in thinking marks a departure from Flock's earlier insistence that it merely provides tools and should not be held accountable for the actions of police officers. Critics argue that such a stance ignores the company's active role in designing systems that enable surveillance and in selling them to agencies with promises of effectiveness. By making Audit Assistance mandatory and adding friction to search processes, Flock is finally acknowledging that the architecture of its software can either facilitate abuse or help prevent it.
The road ahead
The new measures are not perfect solutions. The ACLU and other watchdog groups have pointed out that internal auditing can still be gamed, and that requiring case codes does not prevent an officer from inventing a false reason for a search. Independent oversight is likely needed to ensure these tools work as intended. The shorter retention period is also a positive step, but leaving agencies with the option to extend it could nullify the privacy benefits in many jurisdictions. Flock's Evidence Mode could be a useful compromise, but only if it is used appropriately and subjected to external scrutiny.
Langley, for his part, seems to accept that the company will need to prove itself. “It took me maybe longer than it should have to realize the sheer impact of the company,” he said. “I’m still surprised. I got our July update a week ago, and we helped find almost a thousand missing people, over 22,000 stolen cars — in July. That’s crazy. That’s such a big impact on the world. And what I came to realize over time was that the responsibility that bears with it is an obligation to make sure that it’s creating a society that we both, you and I, and everyone around us, want to raise their kids in.”
As Flock rolls out these changes, law enforcement agencies across the country will need to adapt to the new requirements. Officers will have to enter case codes for each search, and administrators will have to review flagged behavior. The shift to a shorter default data retention period will also force departments to think more carefully about what they collect and why. While the reforms may not satisfy all critics, they represent a significant departure from the company's previous hands-off approach.
The coming months will reveal whether these changes reduce instances of officer misconduct and rebuild public trust. With reports of abuse continuing to surface, Flock is under pressure to demonstrate that its technology can be used responsibly. The company's willingness to change course is a step in the right direction, but as the ACLU notes, the real test lies in implementation and independent verification.
Source: The Verge News