Flock Claims It’s The First Company To Expose Police Misuse Of Surveillance Tech

Flock Safety is hurting. It spent the early part of its career pitching plate reader tech to people who honestly didn't need it: HOA supervisors and gated communities. Then it realized there was far more money to be made by courting governments, rather than the richest parts of the private sector.

A few years later and Flock's network of ALPR (automated license plate readers) cameras is now snagging plate reads at a rate of 20 billion a month. Power, responsibility, etc., as the old saying goes. Except cops and Flock wanted all of the power and none of the responsibility, which leads us to where we're at now.

Dozens of cities are shutting down (or attempting to) their Flock cameras. Journalists all over the nation have published reports based on public records requests and court filings that demonstrably show Flock's expansive camera network is empowering a new flavor of superpredator." This time, the uber-predator wears cop clothes.

On top of all of that, there's been illegal (often second-hand) access by federal officers who talk local cops into performing searches for them. Then there are the cops themselves - who when not using Flock's network to rat out migrants and/or hunt down people seeking legal abortions - are using this tech to keep tabs on people who've moved on from their relationships with the thin black-and-blue line of domestic abusers and stalkers.

Flock is now desperately trying to rehabilitate its image. At this point, Flock is synonymous with stalkerware, which would already be concerning if it weren't for the fact that people's taxes are paying for the cameras, as well as the cops who believe anything this powerful should be abused as often as possible.

Flock recently made some changes with an eye on curbing cop misuse of its massive database. While it did at least make these restrictions the default options for new customers, the alterations don't really affect existing users. And law enforcement agencies just now signing up for Flock's stalkerware will find it easy to opt-out of the bumper bowling lanes Flock has set up.

While I do believe Flock's efforts are earnest - at least as far as they go - I don't believe Flock actually wants to alienate its largest and most profitable customer base. But I will say this: I don't remember the CEO of Harris Technologies doing interviews and responding to town hall meetings when Stingrays (and the damage done) went viral.

On the other hand, what even the fuck is going on here? People selling surveillance tech to entities that immediately abuse it shouldn't be going live with comments that suggest regular Americans shouldn't be involved in discussions that involve their privacy vs. their security. And yet, here we are. Here's TechCrunch's Anthony Ha with more details:

The country needs to find a compromise" between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley.

When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they're prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise," Langley said duringa recent interview with Fox News. How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?"

First off, if you're headed to Fox first, it means you're not really serious about dialing back surveillance that allows cops to hunt down abortion seekers, federal officers to hunt down migrants, and cops to hunt down their ex-girlfriends. These are all things most Fox viewers approve of.

Second, you're not the right person to be asking about balancing" privacy and security. You don't really care about privacy. And despite the company's claims, there's little evidence on the record that installing Flock ALPRs actually leads to lower crime rates, which is what Langley is talking around when he uses a vague term like security."

I mean, I can secure my immediate private area with a network of cameras, improvised explosives, and sitting on my porch bathtub-cranked to the gills while cradling a shotgun. Privacy ain't an issue. The same thing can be said for the other side: cops can load up on surveillance tech and claim things are more secure," but secure" isn't necessarily safe, and privacy still matters, whether or not Flock or its customers are willing to engage honestly with this topic.

But that isn't the most insane/inane thing to fall out the mouth of Flock's CEO. This is:

I don't think that Flock created police abuse. I think we're the first company to ever shine a light on it and build the tools to find it."

Hot diggity damn. WTAF.

It's true that Flock didn't create" police abuse. But it just sat on its hands for months as evidence of police abuse piled up.

And the long history of police abuse of pretty much every database/surveillance tool they have access to should have resulted in restrictions being put in place before the company went shopping for cops, rather than hastily put into place (figuratively) minutes ago by a CEO who is now making PLEASE CLAP" media appearances in hopes of preventing even more contract cancellations and negative press.

While it is true that Flock's log files can (sometimes) be obtained via public records requests (which has led to exposure of abuse by police officers), this isn't because Flock is so good at either privacy or security. It's just the expected side effect of doing business with government agencies.

And Flock is not the champion it pretends to be. Plenty of companies are capable of sniffing out abuse by government agencies. Most just tend not to look for it. Flock is definitely not the first" to shine a light" on police misconduct. 90% of this is involuntary and the other 10% is absolute horseshit. I don't remember Flock ever posting on its blog about police abuse even though it apparently has access to search logs. It's always someone else doing the real work, with Flock hopping on the blog to post defensive statements and/or highlight some cop official rando talking big about this one time we found a stolen car."

If Flock really wants to be the hero, it needs to start breaking news, rather than reacting to it. It should be the whistleblower, alerting law enforcement management and cutting off access the moment it sees something sketchy. And it should have been doing this long ago, rather than pretending it cares the most... but only after it has weathered a few years of negative press.