Flock Adds Safeguards to Licence-Plate Readers After Wave of Stalking Cases

A disturbing trend has been unfolding in the US under the guise of public safety: the proliferation of automatic licence-plate readers (ALPRs) that threatens individual privacy and erodes trust between law enforcement and communities. The latest development is Flock Safety’s decision to implement “safeguards” after reports emerged of police officers using their AI-powered ALPRs to stalk and harass women.

Flock, based in Atlanta, Georgia, has an impressive network of 120,000 cameras across the US, capturing images of vehicles and licence plates for storage in a searchable database. The company markets its products as crime-fighting tools but critics have long accused Flock of operating with little oversight. This week’s announcement is just the latest attempt to address concerns about ALPR misuse.

Flock claims it will reduce the recommended default retention period from 30 days to seven, and introduce an “evidence mode” that allows for longer search windows in exceptional cases. However, as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) pointed out, these changes are largely superficial. The company is also introducing an audit feature that documents all searches and flags abnormal activity, but this does not address the fundamental issue: who gets access to sensitive data, and under what circumstances.

The problem with Flock’s approach is that it treats legitimate privacy concerns as public relations issues rather than genuine problems. By creating a veneer of transparency through its audit feature, Flock is attempting to sidestep the core issue of accountability. The ACLU has expressed scepticism about Flock’s new measures and for good reason: most of the changes seem like recycled versions of inadequate safety features.

Flock also proposes introducing case codes for all law enforcement searches by 2026. While this might seem a straightforward measure, it could be a clever way to entrench the ALPR system and limit accountability. If law enforcement agencies can use vague categories like “violent crime” or “missing person,” they will have ample opportunity to justify their requests for sensitive data.

Another aspect of Flock’s announcement is its proposal to introduce offence-based filters. By allowing cities to restrict which types of data can be accessed, Flock is essentially outsourcing the problem to local governments. This raises concerns about consistency and accountability: who will ensure that these filters are implemented fairly and consistently across different jurisdictions?

The implications of this story go far beyond Flock’s attempts to address concerns about ALPRs. It highlights a broader trend in which technology companies are increasingly complicit in mass surveillance efforts, often under the guise of public safety or security. The consequences of this trend are far-reaching: individual privacy is eroded, trust between law enforcement and communities is strained, and the potential for abuse remains unchecked.

As we move forward, it’s essential to hold Flock and other technology companies accountable for their role in perpetuating mass surveillance. We need a more nuanced conversation about the trade-offs between public safety and individual liberty. The ACLU has been vocal in its criticism of ALPRs, and it’s heartening to see them pushing back against Flock’s half-measures.

Ultimately, this story is not just about Flock or its attempts to address concerns about ALPRs. It’s about the future we want to build: one that balances individual privacy with public safety, and prioritizes accountability over convenience. The stakes are high, and it’s time for all of us – policymakers, technology companies, and citizens alike – to take a hard look at the consequences of mass surveillance by stealth.