Flock adds checks on police camera misuse

The company wants departments to keep plate-reader data for seven days and make Audit Assistance mandatory, but critics say key proof is still missing.

Flock, a surveillance technology startup, has announced new policies and tools it says are meant to reduce abuse of its automated license plate reader systems by police departments. The changes stand out not just because of the technology, but because Flock still has not clearly explained how one of its main accountability tools works. That gap has become part of the story as the company pushes new safeguards. Critics say promises of oversight are not enough without evidence that the system works.

The company is now asking law enforcement customers to keep data for seven days instead of 30. It also introduced “Evidence Mode,” which allows longer retention in “exceptional cases” and requires a specific case number. Another change lets customers limit the data they share with other customers depending on the type of offense under investigation.

Flock narrows data retention and sharing

The new policies are aimed at limiting how long sensitive camera data stays available and how widely it can move between customers. That matters because automatic license plate reader systems collect information about vehicles and can create detailed records of movement.

By cutting the default retention period to seven days, Flock is signaling that it wants customers to hold less data unless there is a clear reason to keep it longer. The company’s new “Evidence Mode” is intended for those exceptions, but it is not a blanket setting. It must be tied to a specific case number, which suggests the feature is meant to create a more traceable paper trail for longer storage.

Flock is also giving customers more control over data sharing. Instead of broad sharing by default, departments will be able to set limits based on the offense being investigated. In practical terms, that could mean more selective use of the system, though the source does not say how often departments will use those limits or how much they will change current practice.

Audit Assistance will be required by year-end

The company also pointed to “Audit Assistance” as one of the most important changes. Flock launched the tool in April, and it says more than one-third of its customers have already turned it on. Now the startup is requiring all customers to enable it by the end of the year.

Flock says Audit Assistance is designed to detect abnormal activity and flag it for administrator review. If the system identifies a problem, it can automatically lock out users who have been flagged until an administrator steps in. According to the company, the tool has already helped customers spot and stop abuse, as IT-PUB News reports.

That is the central claim behind Flock’s announcement: that it can add a layer of oversight to systems that have faced repeated accusations of misuse. Flock is presenting the tool as a way to make police departments more accountable for how they use the cameras.

But the company still has not offered a detailed explanation of how the tool actually works.

Flock offers examples, but not the full picture

Some company comments offer a rough sense of what Audit Assistance may catch. Ashley Haber, Flock’s head of trust and compliance, said in a video that it can flag “what may look like an odd search history from a specific user.” Flock co-founder Paige Todd gave another example, saying it can detect unusual patterns early, such as someone searching the same plate repeatedly for more than 30 days.

In a press release, Major Patrick Krieg of the Dunwoody, Georgia Police Department described it as “an algorithm that has notified us of any type of bias.”

Flock itself says the tool can “surface atypical activity early and review it quickly with a clear, documented workflow.” That points to a monitoring system with a review process attached, but it still leaves key questions unanswered.

TechCrunch asked how the “algorithm” works, what data it is trained on, and whether it was built using a large language model. The publication also asked what kinds of patterns the tool is designed to surface and what exactly counts as “abnormal activity.”

Flock told TechCrunch that Audit Assistance is not based on machine learning or AI. The company said it is “a data tool that flags atypical search patterns for further review.” One example it gave is a user searching for the same plate using multiple different case codes, which Flock says could indicate possible abuse. The company also stressed that a flag does not prove misconduct; it only means the activity should be investigated.

Critics say Flock still has not shown proof

Even with that explanation, several important questions remain unanswered. The source says it is still unclear whether Flock has statistics showing how effective the tool is, what its false positive and false negative rates are, or whether an independent third party has audited it.

That uncertainty is a major reason the announcement has drawn scrutiny. Flock’s critics and privacy advocates are not persuaded by the company’s claims that the tool will meaningfully curb abuse.

Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote that there is “no evidence” the tool works consistently to address abuse. He pointed to recent arrests, firings, and other discipline involving officers who misused Flock for personal reasons, and said those cases do not prove the auditing tool is effective. In his view, without knowing how many officers misuse the system in total, it is impossible to tell whether the tool catches most violators or only a small fraction.

Marlow said Flock should have the tool analyzed by an independent evaluator to determine its real effectiveness. Until that happens, he argued, it is impossible to know whether the feature is a genuine security measure or just “window dressing.”

Cooper Quintin, a security researcher and senior public interest technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, raised a different concern. He told TechCrunch that even if Audit Assistance works, law enforcement may still find ways around it. In his view, the more important issue is whether abusers are actually caught and held accountable.

Quintin also said that if the tool reports problems back to the same police agency that is doing the abuse, it may not provide meaningful accountability. He argued that stronger legal limits and warrant requirements would be a better way to ensure oversight.

Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, took a more cautious position. She said making Audit Assistance mandatory is a step in the right direction and called the idea “in theory” a good one. But she also said the tool needs to be audited because there is not enough information about how it works in practice.

Abuse cases keep driving the debate

Flock’s announcement comes after years of reported incidents involving misuse of its technology. The issue has become harder for the company to ignore because the abuse has not been hypothetical.

Earlier this week, three former Georgia sheriff’s deputies were arrested and accused of using Flock cameras to stalk people with whom they had a “personal relationship at the time,” according to the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office. In that case, Bibb County Sheriff David Davis specifically credited Flock’s new Audit Assistance tool with uncovering the misuse.

That helps explain why Flock’s latest changes are getting attention now. The company is trying to present its new controls as a response to real-world abuse, not just a policy update. At the same time, the criticism shows that adding more oversight tools does not automatically settle concerns about surveillance, data access, and police accountability.

For businesses, public agencies, and communities affected by these systems, the question is not only whether the tools can detect suspicious activity. It is also who decides what counts as suspicious, who reviews the alerts, and whether the process can be trusted without outside scrutiny. Flock’s new rules are an attempt to address those concerns, but the company is still being pressed to show that the safeguards work as advertised.