Flock Safety, a company that operates a network of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) used by thousands of police departments across the United States, is making significant changes to its software after a series of reports revealed that some officers were using the technology for personal and nefarious purposes. CEO Garrett Langley is now publicly admitting that the company failed to anticipate and prevent these abuses, and he is rolling out a set of mandatory safeguards designed to increase accountability.
New safeguards
The most notable change is that Flock will now require all police departments to enable Audit Assistance, a feature that was previously optional. This tool uses algorithms to detect abnormal search patterns, such as frequent queries on the same license plate, and immediately locks the user out until an administrator reviews the activity. According to Flock, only a third of its agency partners had activated this feature since it was introduced in April, even though it meaningfully helped surface misconduct. "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.'"
In addition to mandatory audit assistance, Flock will require users to input a case code before running each search. The goal is to eliminate searches that are not tied to an official investigation. While administrators can override this requirement in emergency situations, such as searching for a missing child, those overrides will automatically be flagged for later review. The company hopes that the case-code requirement will create a digital paper trail that makes it much harder for officers to use the system for personal reasons.
Shorter data retention and granular sharing
Flock is also reducing the default amount of time it stores data collected by its cameras from 30 days to just seven days. This change aligns more closely with the recommendations of privacy advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has long warned that lengthy data retention periods create a surveillance risk. Police departments can still choose to keep data for longer, but the default shortens significantly. Additionally, Flock is introducing an "Evidence Mode" that will preserve searches only when they are associated with a specific case number.
Another important update relates to data sharing between agencies. Previously, localities that used Flock could share their data with other police departments on an all-or-nothing basis. Under the new system, they will be able to establish granular limits. For example, one agency could allow another to access its data for a homicide investigation but not for immigration enforcement. This gives local governments more control over how their surveillance data is used beyond their jurisdiction.
A disturbing pattern of abuse
The changes come after a series of disturbing incidents involving officers who allegedly used Flock's tracking tools for stalking and harassment. In Braselton, Georgia, a police chief reportedly searched his ex-girlfriend's license plate more than 500 times over a seven-month period. In California, prosecutors alleged that a former Riverside County Sheriff's Office deputy used Flock data to stalk his ex-girlfriend, including looking up information about men she was dating. These cases highlight how easily a powerful surveillance tool can be turned into a weapon of personal vendetta.
Misuse of ALPRs is not a new problem. The nonprofit Institute for Justice has documented cases of ALPR abuse dating back to 2021, and the recent spate of incidents has reignited public concern. Flock's own data shows that when departments enabled Audit Assistance, instances of misconduct were far more likely to be discovered. "You are going to see more officers fired and more officers arrested for abusing police power," Langley predicted.
The technology under scrutiny
Flock's ALPRs are typically mounted on streetlights or other structures and take a photograph of every passing vehicle's license plate. The images are then run through databases to identify vehicles of interest, such as stolen cars or those connected to missing persons. The system can also generate alerts for certain plates, and it allows law enforcement to search the historical movement of a specific vehicle. This kind of "geolocation" data is extraordinarily sensitive because it can reveal where people live, work, and socialize, as well as who they visit. Privacy advocates have warned that ALPRs could be used to track women seeking abortions, journalists at protests, or other vulnerable individuals.
Groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have long accused Flock of downplaying these risks. They have called on local governments to enact strict regulations governing how ALPR data can be collected, retained, and shared. In some cases, Flock has been accused of making misleading statements to policymakers about the capabilities of its technology. Langley has previously pushed back against such criticism, sometimes with combative rhetoric. In a published interview last year, he described DeFlock, a site that tracks Flock's cameras across the country, as a "terroristic" group. He has since apologized and called that characterization a "mistake."
ACLU remains skeptical
The ACLU's initial response to Flock's latest changes has been caution. In an analysis published after the announcements, the organization said the updates appear "more focused on addressing a perceived PR problem than the significant harms its products create." While the shorter data retention period was called a potential "step in the right direction," the ACLU noted that the real impact will depend on how Evidence Mode and other features are implemented. The group is also calling for independent reviews of Flock's auditing and case-code tools to verify their effectiveness.
This skepticism is understandable given Flock's history. The company has previously argued that local policymakers are responsible for deciding what guardrails should be placed on its technology. Langley has said he still prefers that legislators make the key decisions about how policing tools are used, in part because he hopes that regulation would force competing surveillance companies to adopt similar safeguards. But he now acknowledges that waiting for legislation is not enough. "It took me maybe longer than it should have to realize the sheer impact of the company," he said.
A shift in leadership tone
Langley's change of heart appears to be the result of frequent conversations with communities around the country, including at city council meetings. He says that he has come to understand that the company has a moral obligation to ensure that its tools are used responsibly. "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," he explained.
Despite the new measures, Langley concedes that critics may not trust him or the company overnight. "All I guess I'm asking for is for a fair shot," he said. Still, the changes represent a significant departure from Flock's previous position. By requiring audit assistance and case codes, and by shortening data retention, the company is taking steps that critics have been demanding for years. The question remains whether these safeguards will be enough to prevent further abuse, or whether they will simply make it easier to catch offenders after the fact.
What happens next
Flock says the new features will be rolled out to all of its agency partners over the coming weeks. The company is also expected to provide additional training and guidance to police departments on how to use the new tools effectively. Langley emphasized that the company is committed to being transparent about what its technology can and cannot do, and he expressed hope that policymakers at all levels of government will step up to create a legal framework for ALPR use.
The broader debate over ALPRs is unlikely to dissipate quickly. As more cities and counties consider whether to adopt Flock's cameras, the company's actions will be closely scrutinized. For now, Langley's admission that "we got this one wrong" is an acknowledgment that the company's earlier approach was inadequate. Whether the new policies will restore public trust remains to be seen, but they are clearly a response to growing pressure from reporters, privacy advocates, and the public. With officers across the country being caught misusing the technology, the stakes for getting this right could not be higher.
Source: The Verge News