Surveillance technology company Flock is implementing a series of policy changes after investigations revealed that some law enforcement officers were using its license plate tracking tools to stalk ex-romantic partners and harass others. CEO Garrett Langley is offering a public apology, acknowledging that the company needs to take greater responsibility for how its products are deployed.
In an interview, Langley said he has changed his mind on what responsibility Flock bears for how law enforcement uses its technology. The company will roll out updates over the coming weeks that include making Audit Assistance a mandatory feature. This tool flags abnormal search behavior and immediately locks out suspicious users until an administrator reviews their activity. Previously, the feature was optional, and only about a third of agencies working with Flock had chosen to enable it.
The Abuse Reports
The changes come in the wake of a series of disturbing reports about officers allegedly using Flock for stalking and harassment. One police chief in Braselton, Georgia, 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 data from Flock to stalk and harass his ex-girlfriend, including looking up license plate information on men she was dating. Reports of Flock and other automatic license plate reader (ALPR) abuse date back to 2021, according to the nonprofit Institute for Justice, and a recent spate of incidents has brought them further into public view.
Langley now predicts that with the new auditing tools in place, more officers will be held accountable. “You are going to see more officers fired and more officers arrested for abusing police power,” he said. He noted that Audit Assistance makes it easier for departments to surface suspicious behavior instead of manually combing through thousands of lines of logs.
Policy Changes
Flock is also shortening the default period it keeps data from devices like its ALPRs from 30 to seven days, moving closer to the limits suggested by critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Police departments can still choose to lengthen that retention period, or use Flock’s new Evidence Mode, which preserves searches tied to a specific case number. Additionally, individual localities can now set granular limits on data sharing with other agencies. Previously, sharing was all-or-nothing; now a police department can allow another agency to search its Flock data for a homicide suspect while blocking access for immigration enforcement.
All users will also be required to enter case codes to run searches, ideally limiting the ability to run a query for personal or nefarious purposes. This requirement can be overridden by an administrator for emergency situations, such as tracking a missing child, but those overrides will automatically be flagged for review. Langley said the case code requirement was an obvious way to curb abuse, and he admitted, “Fine. You know what? I think that’s right, and we got this one wrong. We should make it a requirement.”
Skepticism from Civil Liberties Groups
After Flock announced the updates, the ACLU released an analysis of the changes, saying they appear “more focused on addressing a perceived PR problem than the significant harms its products create.” While the ACLU called the shorter data retention period a potential “step in the right direction,” it noted that the reality will depend on how Evidence Mode is implemented. The organization also called for independent review of Flock’s auditing and search reason requirement tools to determine how effective they really are.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other groups have also accused Flock of misleading the public and officials about the risks of its tools, and warned that they could be put to uses like tracking women seeking abortions. In at least one case of allegedly misleading statements, Flock reportedly chalked up the disconnect to confusion over a nuanced issue. The company has separately said officers are prohibited from doing searches related to reproductive care in states where such searches are restricted.
A Shift in Tone
Langley’s public stance has softened considerably. In the past, he took a combative approach to some critics, saying that local policymakers should decide what guardrails are appropriate for its tools. He previously called DeFlock, a site that tracks Flock’s technologies across the country, a “terroristic” group. In July, he apologized and called that characterization a “mistake.”
Langley says his approach has evolved thanks to frequent conversations with communities around the country, including at city council meetings. He understands that many critics will not immediately trust his intentions. “All I guess I’m asking for is for a fair shot,” he said. He still prefers legislators to make key calls about how policing tools should be used, and he hopes that these proposals will also force competing companies to adopt similar guardrails. But he is now publicly acknowledging that regulation could take a while to happen, and that the company bears some responsibility for how its technology is deployed.
“It took me maybe longer than it should have to realize the sheer impact of the company,” Langley 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.”
Flock’s technology has become increasingly widespread in recent years. The company’s ALPRs are mounted on police cruisers and street poles, capturing license plates and using that data to identify vehicles of interest. The systems are marketed as a tool for solving crimes and finding missing people, but privacy advocates have long raised concerns about the potential for abuse. The data collected by Flock can reveal where someone has been, when they were there, and with whom they associated, creating a detailed map of a person’s movements. This information can be valuable for legitimate investigations, but it also presents significant risks when placed in the hands of officers with malicious intent.
The recent incidents of stalking and harassment have highlighted those risks. In the Braselton case, the police chief’s repeated searches of his ex-girlfriend’s license plate were discovered only after an audit was conducted. The former Riverside County deputy’s alleged abuse came to light after prosecutors filed charges against him. These cases demonstrate that without robust auditing and oversight, law enforcement agencies cannot reliably prevent misuse of surveillance data.
Flock’s decision to make Audit Assistance mandatory is a direct response to these failures. The tool is designed to detect patterns that may indicate abuse, such as an unusually high number of searches on a single plate outside of normal work hours. When such behavior is flagged, the system locks the user out until an administrator can review the activity. This type of automated oversight is crucial, as manual reviews are often impractical for departments that process large volumes of data.
The requirement for case codes is another important safeguard. By forcing officers to enter a case number for each search, Flock creates a paper trail that can be used to hold officers accountable. This reduces the likelihood that an officer will run a query for personal reasons, such as checking up on a former partner or tracking someone who angry them. While the system can be overridden in emergencies, those overrides are automatically flagged, ensuring that even legitimate uses are subject to review.
However, civil liberties groups remain concerned about the broader implications of Flock’s technology. The ACLU and EFF have argued that the company has downplayed the risks of its tools and excessive data collection. Even with shorter retention periods, the data collected by Flock can still be used to build detailed profiles of individuals over time. The ability to share data across agencies, even with granular controls, raises questions about how that data will be used beyond the initial purpose for which it was collected.
There is also concern that the new measures could be circumvented. For example, an officer could use an emergency override without a legitimate emergency, or an administrator with malicious intent could approve questionable searches. Independent audits and regular reviews will be essential to ensure that the system is not being abused.
Despite these concerns, Langley’s acknowledgment that the company got it wrong is a notable shift. It reflects a growing recognition among surveillance technology companies that they cannot simply wash their hands of responsibility by pointing to law enforcement policies. As public scrutiny of policing technology intensifies, companies like Flock are being pressured to build more safeguards into their products by design.
The debate over Flock and other ALPRs is part of a larger conversation about the role of surveillance in American society. While the technology can be a powerful tool for public safety, it also raises fundamental questions about privacy and civil liberties. Balancing these competing interests is a challenge that will require ongoing dialogue between technology companies, policymakers, law enforcement, and the public.
Langley’s apology and the new policy changes are a step in that direction, but they do not fully address the systemic risks posed by mass surveillance. The ACLU’s call for independent review of Flock’s tools highlights the need for third-party oversight. Without it, there is a risk that the new measures will be performative rather than effective.
For now, Flock’s changes are set to go into effect in the coming weeks. The company will need to demonstrate that the new safeguards are working as intended and that they are more than a public relations effort. The officers who abused Flock’s tools will face consequences, but the broader question remains: how far should surveillance go, and who is responsible for ensuring it is not used to harm?
Source: The Verge News