Flock’s CEO has publicly admitted that his company made a serious mistake in how it approached police use of its surveillance tools. After a string of reports accused officers of using automatic license plate readers for stalking and harassment, the company is introducing a set of policy changes designed to limit abuse. The update marks a significant shift for a firm that had previously argued that local lawmakers were responsible for reining in questionable police searches.
Garrett Langley, Flock’s chief executive, now says the company should have acted sooner. In an interview, he said he had changed his mind about how much responsibility Flock carries for the way law enforcement uses its products. “This is such an obvious way to curb abuse,” Langley said. “And I said, ‘Fine. You know what? I think that’s right, and we got this one wrong. We should make it a requirement.’” He was talking about a feature that previously let police departments choose whether to require case codes for every search.
The most immediate change is that Audit Assistance, once optional, will soon be mandatory for every agency. That feature flags abnormal search behavior. When suspicious activity is detected, the user is locked out until an administrator reviews what happened. This includes searches that appear to follow a current or former partner, repeated lookups of the same unrelated plate, or queries outside an officer’s area of responsibility. Flock says the automatic lock is meant to stop harm before it goes too far, rather than only detect it after a complaint.
In addition, every user will be required to enter a case code before running a search. That code links the search to an official investigation. Emergency situations such as searching for a missing child can override this requirement, but the search will still be flagged for later review. The company hopes this creates a stronger audit trail and reduces the chance that someone will use the system for personal reasons.
Flock is also shortening the default retention period for data captured by its license plate readers from 30 days to seven days. That aligns more closely with recommendations from privacy groups like the ACLU, which have argued that storing location data for long periods creates unnecessary risk. Police departments will still be able to choose a longer retention period, and Flock is adding a new “Evidence Mode” to preserve searches linked to a specific case number.
Another change addresses how sharing between agencies works. Previously, when one police department gave another access to its data, the access was all or nothing. Now, agencies will be able to set granular restrictions. For example, one department could allow another to search its plate data while investigating a homicide but stop the other agency from using the data for immigration enforcement. This is meant to prevent mission creep, where user data collected for one purpose gets used for another.
The changes come after multiple high-profile incidents. One police chief in Braselton, Georgia, allegedly searched his ex-girlfriend’s license plate more than 500 times over seven months. In California, prosecutors accused a former Riverside County sheriff’s deputy of using Flock to stalk his ex-girlfriend, including looking up license plate information about men she was dating. Civil liberties organizations have pointed out that these are not isolated cases. The nonprofit Institute for Justice has tracked reports of ALPR abuse since 2021, and a recent wave of incidents has pushed the issue into the public spotlight.
Langley now predicts that more officers will lose their jobs or face criminal charges because of the expanded auditing tools. “You are going to see more officers fired and more officers arrested for abusing police power,” he said. Since Audit Assistance became available as a voluntary feature in April, only about one third of agencies using Flock turned it on. According to Flock, agencies that enabled the feature saw the identification of abuse increase. That gap in adoption is one reason the company decided to make the feature mandatory.
This is not the first time Flock has faced criticism. In previous statements, Langley has argued that local policymakers should decide what limits are needed, and he has accused some watchdogs of unfair attacks. Last year, in a national magazine interview, he described DeFlock, a website that tracks Flock cameras across the country, as “terroristic.” In July, he apologized and admitted that was a mistake. His tone has softened as pressure has grown. But privacy groups remain skeptical about whether the new changes are enough.
The ACLU released an analysis after Flock announced the updates. It said the changes appear “more focused on addressing a perceived PR problem than the significant harms its products create.” While the group said shortening data retention is a potential “step in the right direction,” it noted that the effectiveness will depend on how Evidence Mode is implemented. The ACLU also called for an independent review of Flock’s auditing and search reason tools to determine whether they actually work.
The debate over Flock is part of a larger fight about ALPRs and police surveillance. Automatic license plate readers use cameras installed on roads, street poles, and police cruisers to capture the license plate of every car that passes. Flock is one of the largest providers in the United States, and its systems are in use by hundreds of police departments. The company markets its technology as a tool for solving crimes and finding missing people, but critics argue that the same data can become a dangerous surveillance engine.
There are also concerns about the potential for harm outside law enforcement. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have accused Flock of misleading public officials about privacy risks. Privacy advocates have warned that ALPR data can be used to track people seeking abortions, visiting clinics, or attending political protests. Flock has said that its contracts prohibit officers from searching for reproductive care in states where such searches are restricted, but critics want stronger assurances.
Langley says his thinking has evolved through conversations with communities across the country, including city council meetings. He is aware that many critics will not trust his intentions. “All I guess I’m asking for is for a fair shot.” He still believes that legislators are best positioned to make policy decisions about how policing tools should be used, and he hopes that state and federal rules will eventually force competing companies to adopt similar safeguards. But he acknowledges that waiting for legislation is not enough, especially as these products become more powerful.
The company also points to the benefits of its technology. Flock says that in July alone its system helped find almost a thousand missing people and more than 22,000 stolen cars. Langley says those numbers changed how he sees the company’s role. “It took me maybe longer than it should have to realize the sheer impact of the company,” he said. “I'm still surprised. I got our July update a week ago, and we helped find almost a thousand missing people, over 22,000 stolen cars — in July. That's crazy. That's such a big impact on the world. And what I came to realize over time was that the responsibility that bears with it is an obligation to make sure that it's creating a society that we both, you and I, and everyone around us, want to raise their kids in.”
Surveillance policy experts argue that the product's usefulness does not erase the need for checks and balances. They note that the same system that finds missing people can also be used to monitor intimate partners, especially when there is no strong oversight. Mandating audit logs and case codes is important, but those safeguards only work if agencies actually enforce them. Critics have called for stronger limits on who can access ALPR data, how long it can be kept, and whether it should be shared with immigration authorities.
Another key concern is the lack of independent verification. Flock’s new features are designed to detect abnormal behavior, but outside researchers have rarely been able to test their accuracy. The ACLU and other groups want to see audits performed by third parties, not just by officials inside the company. They also worry that “abnormal search behavior” may not be enough to catch every potential misuse. For example, an officer could search a neighbour's plate once and never again, which may not appear suspicious in an automated review.
Flock has not disclosed how much it spends on privacy and compliance teams, but the new rules will likely require more staff and training. Police departments using Flock will need to adjust their internal procedures and explain to officers why case codes are now required. Some departments may resist the added friction. Because the new features will be bundled into Flock’s system, agencies will have fewer excuses for failing to enforce them.
The company has also addressed concerns about data sharing. Under the new model, agencies can choose who sees their data and for what purpose. This may reduce the threat of police departments using other jurisdictions’ data for out-of-state enforcement or unrelated investigations. At the same time, Flock still gives police chiefs and sheriffs significant discretion. A department that wants to share data broadly can still do so. The change simply makes narrower sharing possible.
Flock’s shift also sends a signal to other surveillance companies. For years, many ALPR vendors have treated policing decisions as someone else’s problem. Langley’s admission is unusual in an industry that often defends its products by saying that technology is neutral and that when people misuse it, they alone are responsible. His new stance acknowledges that design choices shape how tools are used. When companies build auditing into the default system and create friction for suspicious searches, they reduce the likelihood of abuse.
The political landscape around license plate readers is also changing. Several state legislatures have considered bills that would require transparency, audit logs, and limits on data retention. Some cities have voted to ban Flock cameras altogether. The LAPD recently suspended its use of Flock cameras, and the company has faced sharp criticism from privacy advocates who believe the devices are invasive. These events have raised the stakes for Flock and other ALPR providers.
Still, Flock is not turning its business model upside down. The company still wants to sell its cameras to as many police departments as possible, and it continues to argue that its tools are essential for public safety. The new changes are best understood as adjustments to an existing system, not a rejection of mass surveillance. Langley says he thinks the pendulum is swinging toward more accountability, and that technology companies need to keep up. Whether the changes will be enough to satisfy civil liberties groups remains uncertain.
As the roll out begins, police departments across the country will have to decide how to implement the new requirements. Some will welcome the extra oversight. Others may complain that case codes add unnecessary work. The initial reaction from advocacy groups has been cautious, not celebratory. They want to see evidence that Flock’s tools truly work. They also want to know what happens when an officer ignores the rules. If administrators fail to review flagged searches, mandatory auditing will do little to stop abuse.
Flock has not promised to publish a national transparency report or open its systems to outside audits. The company says it is committed to improving its products and cooperating with regulators. But the history of policing tools suggests that enforcement requires constant pressure. Once the shock of the recent scandals fades, departments may return to old habits without stronger rules and serious consequences for violations.
The broader implications reach beyond Flock. ALPRs are one part of a growing surveillance ecosystem that includes facial recognition, cell phone location tracking, and predictive policing. The debate about license plate readers is often about whether these systems are allowed to collect data on people who have not been accused of a crime. By default, Flock keeps snapshots of millions of drivers. Most of these people will never be linked to a crime, but their movements are stored on company servers. That collection is what makes the product valuable to police, and that is also what makes it dangerous.
Langley now says he was late to understand the gravity of the responsibility. He has gone from blaming outside watchdogs to repeating some of their language. He still wants to convince the public that Flock can be a force for good. He has also said that he wants to be part of the conversation about the future of public safety and privacy. Whether he can earn trust among civil liberties advocates is not yet clear, since their concerns go beyond the specific mechanics of the new features.
One unresolved issue is whether Flock will allow independent researchers to study its data. The ACLU has asked for this sort of review, and without it, any claim that the system is abuse-resistant remains difficult to verify. Another question is whether the new case code requirement can be gamed. An officer could invent a code and use the system to search for personal reasons, and unless an administrator inspects every search in light of the actual case, some abuse may go unnoticed.
Flock’s updated policies are set to be implemented over the coming weeks. While the company has offered few technical details about how the audit system will work, administrators will be able to see a log of every search and flag anything odd. The tools are likely to vary from agency to agency, depending on how local leadership configures them. This flexibility is useful, but it also means that the level of protection will not be uniform across the country.
Some police departments have praised Flock for helping them recover stolen vehicles and reunite families with missing relatives. Those good outcomes are often cited by the company in its marketing materials. The new monthly statistics from Flock, showing almost a thousand missing people found, are meant to remind the public that surveillance can save lives. But privacy advocates say that saving lives and protecting rights are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to use ALPR technology in a way that does not make everyone a suspect.
As the roll out continues, the most important test will be whether Flock actually follows through. Langley’s admission that “we got this one wrong” is a step in a different direction, but words alone will not repair the damaged trust. The company’s new features will be judged by their results, by the number of officers caught and the number of agencies that comply. If Flock can demonstrate real change, it may be able to shift the conversation from abuse to accountability. If not, the calls for stricter bans and more aggressive legislation are likely to grow louder.
Source:The Verge News