Flock Launches New Policies and Tools Aimed at Curbing Misuse of License Plate Cameras

Surveillance technology startup Flock announced new measures on Thursday designed to reduce the misuse of its automated license plate camera reader systems and enhance accountability among law enforcement customers. The company is now recommending that police departments limit data retention to seven days, a reduction from the previous 30-day period.

Alongside this change, Flock introduced “Evidence Mode,” enabling customers to retain data for extended periods in “exceptional cases,” with a requirement for a specific case number. Additionally, customers can set limits on shared data based on the type of offense under investigation.

A significant component of the announcement is the “Audit Assistance” tool, launched in April and now mandatory for all customers by the year’s end. Flock reports that over one-third of its clients have already activated this feature, which is purported to detect abnormal activity and flag it for administrator review. When flagged, the tool can automatically lock out users until an administrator steps in.

Flock executives have highlighted the potential of Audit Assistance, although the company has not provided detailed explanations on its functionality. Ashley Haber, Flock’s head of trust and compliance, mentioned that the tool can identify unusual search histories, while co-founder Paige Todd noted that it flags repeated searches of the same license plate over an extended period.

Major Patrick Krieg of the Dunwoody, Georgia Police Department described the tool as an “algorithm that has notified us of any type of bias.” However, the specifics regarding the algorithm’s workings, the data it’s based on, and what qualifies as “abnormal activity” remain unclear.

Flock clarified that Audit Assistance does not rely on machine learning or AI, stating it flags atypical search patterns for further review. For example, if a user searches for the same license plate using multiple case codes, it may trigger a flag. However, the company acknowledged that a flag does not confirm abuse; it suggests further investigation is warranted.

Questions persist regarding the tool’s effectiveness, including its false positive and false negative rates, as well as whether it has been subject to third-party audits. Privacy advocates have expressed skepticism about the tool. Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, remarked that there is “no evidence that the tool works consistently” to mitigate abuse.

Cooper Quintin from the Electronic Frontier Foundation emphasized the need for accountability beyond the tool itself, arguing that if law enforcement agencies are responsible for monitoring their own actions, effectiveness may be compromised. “The best way to ensure accountability is to pass laws constraining the use of this technology and requiring a warrant for its use,” he said.

While Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, acknowledged the mandate for Audit Assistance as a positive step, she insisted that an audit of the tool is necessary due to the lack of information about its practical application.

These developments follow multiple incidents of reported misuse of Flock’s technology, including a recent case in which three former Georgia sheriff’s deputies were arrested for allegedly using Flock cameras to stalk individuals with whom they had personal relationships. Bibb County Sheriff David Davis cited Audit Assistance as instrumental in uncovering this misconduct.