Flock Safety: Difference between revisions
SinexTitan (talk | contribs) idk how to descibe that lol |
Mainly ref clean-up up through privacy sub-section. |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States. | |Description=Flock Safety is an American surveillance technology company that develops and operates a mass surveillance system combining automated license plate readers (LPRs), video surveillance cameras, gunshot detection, drones, and data analytics platforms used by thousands of law enforcement agencies and private entities across the United States. | ||
|Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}} | |Logo=Flock Safety Logo (2025).svg}} | ||
'''{{Wplink|Flock Safety}}''' is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=23 Oct 2025 |title=Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE |access-date=30 Oct 2025 |website=[[YouTube]] |type=Video}}</ref> Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Edmonson |first=Crystal |title=Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/08/22/flock-safety-cameras-police-shortage-langley.html |url-access=subscription |website=Atlanta Business Chronicle |date=22 Aug 2023 |access-date= |url-status=dead |archive-url= |archive-date= }}</ref> The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.<ref name="FlockFunding">{{Cite web |title=Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-secures-major-funding |website=Flock Safety |date=13 Mar 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/U3mAs |archive-date=7 Jan 2026}}</ref> | |||
The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue. In March 2025, it closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz, which independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{ | As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than 80,000 AI-enabled cameras nationwide.<ref name="Koebler2025">{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |title=CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide |url=https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |website=404 Media |date=25 Aug 2025 |access-date=29 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825211512/https://www.404media.co/cbp-had-access-to-more-than-80-000-flock-ai-cameras-nationwide/ |archive-date=25 Aug 2025}}</ref> Flock's materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities, and the company reports the system processes "over 20 billion" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock's claims rather than independently verified totals.<ref>{{Cite web |title=City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/city-leaders-choose-flock-safety-a-proven-community-focused-public-safety-solution |website=Flock Safety |date=28 May 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/T17u0 |archive-date=7 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/national-lpr-network |website=Flock Safety |date= |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/nFQGp |archive-date=7 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite web |title=FlockOS |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/flock-os |website=Flock Safety |date= |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/FYMxO |archive-date=7 Jan 2026}}</ref> | ||
The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue. In March 2025, it closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz, which independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.<ref name="FlockFunding" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hu |first=Krystal |title=US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-startup-flock-safety-raises-275-million-fund-manufacturing-plant-rd-2025-03-13/ |website=Reuters |date=13 Mar 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/JaV0t |archive-date=13 Mar 2025}}</ref><ref name="FlockFunding" /> As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.<ref>{{Cite web |last=MacBride |first=Elizabeth |title=Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |website=CNBC |date=10 Jun 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250612102045/https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/flock-safety-cnbc-disruptor-50.html |archive-date=12 Jun 2025}}</ref> | |||
==Consumer-impact summary== | ==Consumer-impact summary== | ||
===Privacy=== | ===Privacy=== | ||
Critics, including civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of | Critics, including civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.<ref name="ACLUStanley">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |website=American Civil Liberties Union |date=18 Aug 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250819025249/https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup |archive-date=19 Aug 2025}}</ref> A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrant-less searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions, and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in ''Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.)'' alleges repeated location logging by ALPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025. Readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for further developments.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |website=NBC News |date=18 Sep 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250918133508/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=18 Sep 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras |website=Flock Safety |date=14 Oct 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.is/YgD1P |archive-date=7 Jan 2026}}</ref> The system does not offer a public opt-out mechanism.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement |url=https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |website=University of Washington Center for Human Rights | ||
|date=21 Oct 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251113234912/https://jsis.washington.edu/humanrights/2025/10/21/leaving-the-door-wide-open/ |archive-date=13 Nov 2025}}</ref> This raised concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=27 Jun 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250628052030/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |archive-date=28 Jun 2025}}</ref> | |||
Specific privacy violations include: | Specific privacy violations include: | ||
* | *Warrant-less tracking and data sharing: Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.<ref name="ACLUStanley" /> | ||
*Expanded audio surveillance: In 2025, Flock announced that its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds, such as screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew | |||
*Undermining state shield laws: Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave | *Expanded audio surveillance: In 2025, Flock announced that its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds, such as screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Guariglia |first=Matthew |title=Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices | ||
|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=2 Oct 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251029213640/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flocks-gunshot-detection-microphones-will-start-listening-human-voices |archive-date=29 Oct 2025}}</ref> | |||
*Undermining state shield laws: Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Maass |first=Dave |title=Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation. |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=7 Oct 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251007134746/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-missing-person-it |archive-date=7 Oct 2025}}</ref> | |||
*Immigration enforcement: Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access, where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name=":0" /> | *Immigration enforcement: Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.<ref name=":0" /> This occurred through three methods: "front door" access, where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
*Contractual privacy overreach: The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data sharing with other agencies.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref> | |||
*Contractual privacy overreach: The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data-sharing with other agencies.<ref name="ACLUStanley2">{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |title=Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |website=American Civil Liberties Union |date=7 Oct 2025 |access-date=6 Jan 2026 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251024234020/https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates |archive-date=24 Oct 2025}}</ref> | |||
===Business Model=== | ===Business Model=== | ||
Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS platform.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" /> | Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.<ref name="Sacra">{{cite web |title=Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding |url=https://sacra.com/c/flock-safety/ |website=Sacra |access-date=2025-10-30}}</ref> The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.<ref name="Sacra" /> This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS platform.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=2025-09-03 |title=AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.<ref name="FlockFunding" /> | ||
| Line 74: | Line 82: | ||
*Inadequate customer support: Numerous complaints have been made about poor customer service, particularly among smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" /> | *Inadequate customer support: Numerous complaints have been made about poor customer service, particularly among smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."<ref name="trustpilot" /> The company's profile on Trustpilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.<ref name="trustpilot" /> | ||
*Ethical and legal concerns: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref | *Ethical and legal concerns: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. One review labeled Flock a "profoundly immoral company" that provides governments with the means to violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.<ref name="trustpilot" /> Major civil liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.<ref name="ACLUStanley" /> The ACLU has also published analyses raising considerable privacy concerns about the technology.<ref name="ACLUStanley 2" /> | ||
==Lawsuits== | ==Lawsuits== | ||
===''Schmidt v. City of Norfolk'' (18 Sep 2025)=== | ===''Schmidt v. City of Norfolk'' (18 Sep 2025)=== | ||
A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref> The second plaintiff had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to the Norfolk Police Department in a deal costing $2.2 million, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023, and at present, there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is requesting that the plaintiff's data be deleted and the cameras be turned off, arguing that these actions constitute an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> | A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collier |first=Kevin |date=2025-09-18 |title=Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251008230235/https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399 |archive-date=2025-10-08 |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=NBC News}}</ref> The second plaintiff had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to the Norfolk Police Department in a deal costing $2.2 million, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023, and at present, there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is requesting that the plaintiff's data be deleted and the cameras be turned off, arguing that these actions constitute an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and a warrantless search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrantless search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrantless use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.<ref>{{cite web | title=Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras | website=Flock Safety | date=2025-10-14 | url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-applauds-virginia-court-of-appeals-ruling-affirming-constitutionality-of-lpr-cameras | accessdate=2025-10-29}}</ref> | ||