Flock says its new tool will help identify police abuse, but hasn’t explained how it works
Flock, a US surveillance technology company, has announced new controls intended to reduce misuse of its automated number-plate reader systems by police. The measures matter because Flock’s systems can enable extensive tracking, while critics question whether the company’s safeguards are sufficiently transparent or independently validated.
The company now recommends retaining data for seven days rather than 30, with longer retention through an “Evidence Mode” requiring a case number; customers can also restrict data sharing by offence type. Its “Audit Assistance” tool, which will become mandatory by year-end, flags atypical searches and can lock out users pending review, but Flock has disclosed little about its rules, effectiveness, error rates or external auditing. Flock says the tool is not AI or machine learning, and gave examples such as repeated searches for the same plate under different case codes.
- Flock promises stronger safeguards against police surveillance misuse.
- Its audit tool flags suspicious search patterns for review.
- Critics say its operation and reliability remain unclear.
New here? Start with this
Flock Safety is a US company that sells cameras and software to police forces, businesses and neighbourhood groups. Its automated number-plate reader cameras record passing vehicles and allow authorised users to search for a vehicle’s movements using its registration plate.
Supporters say the systems can help investigations into crime, missing people and stolen vehicles. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates say they can also make it easier to track large numbers of people who are not suspected of wrongdoing, especially when records are kept or shared widely.
Police access is usually controlled by customer policies and by the company’s own system settings. Questions about oversight focus on whether searches are justified, how long data is stored, who can share it, and whether safeguards can be checked independently.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Flock’s supporters would argue that these controls are a pragmatic and meaningful response to a genuine risk of misuse, while preserving a tool that can help police investigate crime and recover stolen vehicles. Shorter default retention, case-linked access for longer storage, offence-based sharing limits and mandatory anomaly monitoring create clearer guardrails and an auditable basis for intervention; publishing every detection rule could also enable deliberate evasion. They would stress that safeguards can be improved iteratively through operational use rather than delaying protections until a perfect system is available.
The case against
Critics would argue that a company whose systems can facilitate large-scale location tracking should not ask the public to accept opaque safeguards on trust. Without detail on the tool’s criteria, false positives, false negatives, lockout process, appeal mechanisms and independent testing, it is difficult to know whether it detects abuse reliably or merely creates the appearance of oversight. They would contend that meaningful accountability requires transparent policy, independent audits and enforceable limits, particularly because erroneous flags could impede legitimate investigations while undetected misuse can seriously affect civil liberties.