Flock Safety’s response to police stalking allegations is a rare concession from a fast-growing surveillance company. But the new rules have sharpened a harder dispute: whether better controls can fix a system critics say collects far too much data in the first place.

The pressure built after reports of officers using license-plate-reader systems for personal surveillance, including stalking and harassment. Flock cameras figured in 46 of at least 50 alleged or charged misuse cases identified by The Washington Post, while reporting also documented false alerts and harmful police stops tied to automated plate-reader errors.¹

In response, Flock said it would make its Audit Assistance tool mandatory, flagging abnormal searches and locking suspicious users out pending review. It will also require case codes for searches, with emergency overrides subject to review; CEO Garrett Langley acknowledged the company had erred by treating the safeguard as optional: “We got this one wrong. We should make it a requirement.”²

The company is also cutting its recommended default data-retention period from 30 days to seven and giving agencies more granular control over which outside departments can search their data. Yet local agencies may retain data longer, including through an Evidence Mode tied to a case number, leaving the practical limit in local hands.²

Critics welcome the movement but argue the central loophole is plain: Flock does not verify that a case number is real. An officer can enter a bogus number, and the company has not disclosed the accuracy of its automated auditing system or opened it to independent testing.³

That divide reaches beyond stalking. Flock says its nationwide network helps police recover stolen cars and find missing people; privacy advocates say the same network lets agencies search years of vehicle-location data across jurisdictions without first establishing suspicion. “In America, you only get to investigate someone if you think they’ve done something wrong,” ACLU policy counsel Chad Marlow said.³

For those critics, seven-day defaults and search prompts are not a settlement. Flock says backlash and misinformation have cost it customers; opponents say communities are instead reassessing the bargain between public safety and routine surveillance, with some cancelling contracts or considering tighter laws.⁴