What Flock’s defenders are missing
2026-08-20 · MIT Technology Review
What Flock's Defenders Are Missing
Recent Changes and Persistent Loopholes
Flock, the police-tech giant operating a network of some 120,000 automatic license plate readers across the US, announced updates to its platform last Thursday. The changes aim to prevent officers from using the system for illegal or illegitimate purposes, particularly stalking.
The updates follow a *Washington Post* investigation that identified 50 cases in which officers misused Flock and competitor systems, often to stalk and harass women. One woman in Wisconsin alleged her officer ex-boyfriend searched for her car 179 times. Another was stalked by a chief of police with no one to report the abuse to.
Flock’s response includes new practices such as software that flags abnormal searches and a requirement for officers to enter a criminal case number before searching. However, these changes contain significant loopholes. Flock confirmed to MIT Technology Review that it does not verify the case numbers, meaning officers can simply enter bogus information, just as they have circumvented previous safeguards.
Broader Concerns Ignored
The new policies also fail to address wider criticisms from civil liberties and privacy groups. They argue that Flock has transformed a tool sold as a crime-stopping solution into a mass surveillance network. This backlash has already led some cities to cancel contracts and prompted several states to consider laws limiting or banning license plate readers entirely.
The Question Defenders Overlook
Amid the controversy, several arguments have emerged defending Flock: if the cameras help solve crimes, what’s the big deal? On a good day they might catch a kidnapper; otherwise, they are simply photographing cars that no one will ever examine.
This defense skips a more fundamental question: What kind of crime-fighting system has Flock chosen to build? The network functions as it does because of deliberate decisions about:
- What information to collect
- Who is allowed to search it
- How long to retain the data
- How widely to share it across jurisdictions
These choices define the balance between security and civil liberties. Believing technology should help solve crime does not require accepting the current terms of that bargain.
Alternative Design Possibilities
The article outlines several ways Flock could have designed a narrower system:
Case Number Verification
Instead of simply requiring a number that is not checked, the system could require numbers that match a police department’s internal records. This would be more intrusive but would create a far stronger safeguard and better audit trail.
Emergency Use for Missing Persons
Flock frequently cites locating kidnapped or missing people as its primary legitimate use case. A nationwide camera network would be highly valuable for this. However, access could be restricted: searches tied to an active Amber Alert or similar emergency could be granted broader access to data from surrounding areas. This approach would preserve the network’s emergency utility while avoiding constant mass surveillance.
Data Retention and Sharing
Although Flock operates as a national network allowing cross-jurisdictional searches with data retained for months or years, the company itself states that 90% of searches occur within a week of an incident. This suggests a different bargain: retain and share data only as widely and for as long as it is demonstrably useful for solving crimes. Flock recently changed its recommended retention period to seven days, but agencies can still keep data longer if local laws permit.
Business Implications and Future Outlook
A narrower design would likely face continued criticism from groups like the ACLU. Senior policy counsel Chad Marlow half-joked that the only Flock contract acceptable to him is “one that is never signed,” stressing that limits on surveillance should come from legislation rather than company guidelines. Flock CEO Garrett Langley acknowledged he would “probably always have a different view than the ACLU.”
Narrowing the scope would also threaten Flock’s core business model. License plate readers have existed since the 1990s for tolls and ticketing. Flock’s $8 billion valuation rests on turning its cameras into a massive, data-rich national network that offers police departments modernized access to data far beyond their own jurisdictions.
Cities canceling contracts and residents demanding new rules suggest that communities may soon drive their own bargains—deciding how technology should be used to fight crime and how much surveillance they are willing to accept in return.