Surveillance technology company Flock is rolling out a series of policy changes after a wave of reports revealed that law enforcement officers across the United States had misused its automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) to stalk ex-romantic partners and harass others. In a candid interview, Flock CEO Garrett Langley offered a mea culpa, admitting that the company had previously underestimated its responsibility in curbing abuse. “We got this one wrong,” he said, acknowledging a shift in his thinking about how Flock should police the use of its own tools.
The changes come as Flock faces mounting scrutiny from civil liberties groups, lawmakers, and the public over the potential for its surveillance network to be turned against the very communities it claims to protect. The company, which has grown rapidly by installing camera systems that capture license plate data in towns and cities across the country, has long argued that oversight should be left to local policymakers. But Langley now says he has changed his mind, recognizing that waiting for regulation to catch up is not enough.
Mandatory Audit Assistance and Case Codes
Over the coming weeks, Flock will implement updates that require all users to adopt a previously optional feature called Audit Assistance. This tool is designed to flag “abnormal search behavior” and immediately lock out suspicious users until an administrator reviews their activity. The goal is to catch officers who might be running queries for personal or malicious reasons, rather than legitimate law enforcement purposes. The feature has been available since April, but only about a third of the agencies that work with Flock had voluntarily turned it on. According to the company, those agencies that did enable Audit Assistance saw a predictable increase in the identification of abuse, suggesting that the tool can be effective when actually used.
In addition to requiring Audit Assistance, Flock will now require all users to enter a case code before running a search. This requirement aims to limit the ability of officers to query the system without a clear investigative justification. For emergency situations, such as tracking a missing child, an administrator can override the case code requirement, but those overrides will be automatically flagged for review. Langley said he was inspired to make case codes mandatory after seeing how much they reduced misuse in voluntary trials. “This is such an obvious way to curb abuse,” he said. “And I said, ‘Fine. You know what? I think that’s right, and we got this one wrong. We should make it a requirement.’”
Shorter Data Retention and Evidence Mode
Another significant change involves data retention. Flock is shortening the default period for keeping data collected by its ALPRs from 30 days to just seven days, moving closer to the limits long recommended by privacy advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Police departments can still choose to lengthen the retention period if they have a specific reason, but the new default will be seven days. The company is also introducing a new “Evidence Mode,” which will preserve searches tied to a specific case number, ensuring that data relevant to an investigation is not deleted prematurely while unrelated data is discarded.
Flock is also changing how data sharing works between law enforcement agencies. Previously, localities could share their data with other agencies on an all-or-nothing basis. Now, they can set granular limits—for example, allowing another police department to search their Flock data for a homicide suspect, but not allowing access for immigration enforcement or other unrelated purposes. This gives local authorities more control over how their data is used by others, addressing concerns about mission creep and the potential for surveillance to be used in ways that communities did not authorize.
ACLU’s Skeptical Response
The ACLU, which has been one of Flock’s most vocal critics, released an analysis of the announced changes. While the group acknowledged that the shorter data retention period could be a “step in the right direction,” it overall expressed skepticism, suggesting the updates appear “more focused on addressing a perceived PR problem than the significant harms its products create.” The ACLU also called for independent review of Flock’s auditing and search reason requirement tools to determine how effective they really are in practice. Without such independent verification, the group warned, the new safeguards may amount to little more than window dressing.
Langley’s shift in tone is notable. In the past, he has taken a combative approach toward some critics. In a Forbes interview last year, he referred to DeFlock, a website that tracks Flock’s technologies across the country, as a “terroristic” group. In July, he apologized for that characterization, calling it a “mistake.” He has also been accused of misleading the public and officials about the risks of his company’s tools. Groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have warned that ALPR data could be used to track women seeking abortions, among other sensitive uses. Flock has said that officers are prohibited from performing searches related to reproductive care in states where such searches are restricted, but critics remain unconvinced that such prohibitions are enforceable.
High-Profile Abuse Cases
The latest policy changes follow a series of disturbing reports about officers allegedly using Flock for stalking and harassment. One police chief in Braselton, Georgia, searched his ex-girlfriend’s license plate more than 500 times over a seven-month period, according to The Washington Post. In California, prosecutors alleged that a former Riverside County Sheriff’s Office deputy used data from Flock to stalk and harass his ex-girlfriend, looking up license plate information on men she was dating, as reported by local outlet KESQ. These cases have highlighted the ease with which officers with access to sophisticated surveillance tools can exploit them for personal vendettas.
Reports of Flock and other ALPR abuse date back to at least 2021, according to the nonprofit Institute for Justice, and the recent spate of incidents has brought the issue into sharper public focus. Langley acknowledged that with the new tools in place, more abusive officers are likely to be caught. “You are going to see more officers fired and more officers arrested for abusing police power,” he predicted. He noted that Audit Assistance will make it easier for departments to surface suspect behavior, instead of forcing them to manually comb through thousands of lines of logs.
A Change of Heart on Responsibility
For years, Flock’s position has been that local policymakers should decide what guardrails are appropriate for its tools. Langley often pointed to the slow pace of legislative action as a reason why the company itself should not impose stricter rules. But he now says his opinion has evolved through frequent conversations with communities around the country, including appearances at city council meetings and other public forums. “All I guess I’m asking for is for a fair shot,” he said, acknowledging that many critics will not immediately trust his intentions.
Langley says he still prefers legislators to make the key calls about how policing tools should be used. These proposals are not entirely selfless—he hopes that if regulations are enacted, they will force competing companies to adopt similar guardrails. But he now publicly acknowledges that the regulatory process can be slow, and that his company has a responsibility to ensure its technology is not misused in the meantime. “It took me maybe longer than it should have to realize the sheer impact of the company,” he said.
The company’s impact is undeniable. In July alone, according to Langley, Flock helped find almost a thousand missing people and more than 22,000 stolen cars. “That’s crazy. That’s such a big impact on the world,” he said. “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 moves forward with these changes, the broader debate over ALPRs and police surveillance is far from settled. Advocates for privacy continue to push for more stringent oversight, including limits on data collection and stronger transparency requirements. Langley’s acknowledgment that the company “got this one wrong” may be a step in the right direction, but critics argue that the proof will be in how consistently and effectively these new safeguards are enforced. The coming weeks will show whether Flock’s promises translate into meaningful change—or whether they are simply another attempt to defuse a growing public backlash.
Source: The Verge News