TECHNOMALIST
Flock, which operates roughly 120,000 automatic license plate readers across the U.S., announced platform changes intended to curb improper police searches. The move followed a Washington Post investigation that found 50 cases of officers misusing Flock and similar systems, often to stalk or harass women, including one instance in which an officer searched for an ex-partner’s car 179 times.
According to MIT Technology Review, the new safeguards include software that flags unusual search activity and a requirement that officers enter a criminal case number before querying the system. But Flock confirmed it does not verify those case numbers, meaning an officer can simply submit a bogus one. The article also notes that the updates do not address criticism from civil liberties and privacy advocates that Flock has built a mass surveillance network rather than a narrowly targeted crime-solving tool.
Some cities have canceled contracts with Flock, and several states are considering laws to restrict or ban automatic license plate readers. Yet defenders argue the cameras can help catch kidnappers and that most snapshots are never examined. MIT Technology Review contends that framing misses a more fundamental question: what kind of system has Flock designed? Decisions about what data to collect, who can search it, how long it is kept, and how widely it is shared define the trade-off between security and civil liberties. Accepting that technology can help solve crimes does not require accepting those specific terms without scrutiny.
The article outlines alternative designs that could preserve emergency uses while limiting routine surveillance. Instead of accepting unverified case numbers, Flock could require numbers that match police department records, creating a stronger audit trail. For missing-person and kidnapping cases—the use case Flock cites most often—searches tied to an active Amber Alert or similar emergency could access wider regional data. And because Flock says 90% of searches happen within a week of an incident, the company could keep and share data only as widely and for as long as it is actually useful for solving crimes. Flock recently changed its recommended retention period to seven days, but agencies can still hold data longer if they choose.
A narrower system would likely draw continued criticism from groups like the ACLU. Chad Marlow, a senior policy counsel there, said the best way to set limits on surveillance is through new laws, not company guidelines. Flock CEO Garrett Langley acknowledged he will probably always disagree with the ACLU. The article notes that narrowing the technology would also threaten Flock’s business model, which depends on turning license plate readers—a tool used for tolls and ticketing since the 1990s—into a massive, interconnected network that gives police departments modernized access to data from other jurisdictions. The company’s recent multibillion-dollar valuation rests on that pitch.
As cities cancel contracts and residents debate new rules, the article suggests communities may ultimately force Flock to accept different bargains over how its technology is used and how much surveillance people must accept in exchange for crime-solving capabilities.
See an error? Read our corrections policy or email [email protected].
