Flock Safety

Flock Group Inc.

Company type	Private
Industry	Technology Surveillance
Founded	2017
Founders	Garrett Langley Matt Feury
Headquarters	Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.
Key people	Garrett Langley (CEO)
Products	Automated license plate readers CCTV cameras Gunfire detection systems Software
Website	flocksafety.com

Flock Group Inc., doing business as Flock Safety,^[1] is an American manufacturer and operator of automated license plate recognition (ALPR), video surveillance, and gunfire locator systems. Founded in 2017, Flock operates such systems under contract with law enforcement agencies, neighborhood associations, and private businesses, and as of 2024, claims to operate in over 5,000 communities across at least 42 U.S. states.^[2][3][4]

Flock markets its services as tools for crime prevention, and claims that they are effective at aiding criminal investigations; however, they are widely described by critics as an example of mass surveillance, and their efficacy and effects on privacy and other civil liberties are the subject of extensive public scrutiny, debate, and litigation.^[5]

Flock was founded in 2017.^[6] It was co-founded by three Georgia Tech alumni: Garrett Langley (chief executive officer), Paige Todd (chief people officer), and Matt Feury (chief technology officer).^[7][8] It began as a side project in which the three co-founders built their first video surveillance cameras by hand around Langley's dining room table.^[7] When a DeKalb County detective told Langley that his camera product had helped with solving a home break-in, Langley called the two other co-founders and told them to quit their jobs.^[7]

Flock has raised $380 million in venture funding, with a $3.5 billion valuation in 2022.^[9]

By 2024, Flock's fixed cameras had been installed in over 4,000 cities across 42 states.^[2][10][11] By April of that year, Flock employed over 900 people.^[8] That October, Flock acquired Aerodome, a manufacturer of drones for law enforcement, and announced plans to introduce its own line of drones.^[12]

Flock's most popular products, the Falcon and Sparrow, are cameras which monitor traffic and photograph the rear of all passing vehicles. Their software uses artificial intelligence to read the vehicles' license plates and identify other distinguishing visual characteristics, sending that information to a central server via cellular network.^[13] Flock's servers then log this identifying data, with the time and location of the scan, in a searchable database, and compare all results with the National Crime Information Center, as well as state and local police watchlists of cars that are reported stolen or otherwise of interest to the police, instantly alerting nearby officers upon a match.^[14][15][16]

ALPRs like Flock's differ from traffic enforcement cameras in that they are used exclusively for surveillance and criminal investigations, and do not perform any enforcement of traffic laws.^[17][18] Motorola Solutions is Flock's primary competitor in the ALPR market.^[14][19]

Flock claims that its system's ability to identify vehicles' visual features, which it calls "vehicle fingerprint technology," is unique among ALPR systems; they state that the system can identify vehicles' make, model, and color, as well as other distinguishing attributes such as mismatching colors, bumper stickers, dents, and temporary license plates, allowing investigators to search for recorded vehicles based on these characteristics.^[11][20][21]

Most Flock devices are powered by solar panels and rechargeable batteries, allowing them to operate in locations without access to mains electricity.^[22] Many are mounted on manufacturer-supplied poles, while others are affixed to existing lampposts or telephone poles.^[22][23]

Flock offers software which integrates its ALPR and vehicle identification software into existing video camera systems, including Axon dashcams widely used in police vehicles.^[24][25]

Launched in 2021, the lesser-known Flock Raven is an audio gunfire locator, similar in function to ShotSpotter.^[26] The Raven records audio in 5-second increments, using artificial intelligence to analyze the sound clips for audible gunfire; when a gunshot is detected, the device estimates its location and alerts police.^[27] Like the ALPRs, they can be mounted on manufacturer-supplied poles and powered by solar panels.^[28]

Flock owns and operates all of its devices,^[29] leasing them to law enforcement agencies,^[30] homeowners' associations,^[31] schools,^[32] retailers (notably including Lowe's),^[33][34] and commercial and residential property managers.^[34][35][36] Private customers are able to create customizable watchlists in the system.^[31][37]

Flock claims that their technology significantly reduces crime where deployed. In 2023, a Flock spokesperson claimed that the company's system aided in 7% of successful criminal investigations in the United States;^[38] in 2024, the company claimed that its devices "help to solve 10% of reported crime."^[39]

Flock's investors tout its surveillance power:^[11]

"What magnifies the power of Flock Safety even more is that the digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies for a short period of time, making it more powerful as adoption scales within a community and across the U.S. more broadly...The power of Flock Safety is in its network. The more devices deployed, the more evidence there is to solve crimes."

One example is the case of San Marino, California, where Flock Safety's technology was credited with an 80% reduction in residential burglaries in early 2021 compared to the same period in 2020. This statistic was used extensively in the company's marketing efforts. A closer examination revealed that overall, residential burglaries, and more serious offenses, in San Marino did not decrease in the years following Flock's introduction; burglaries slightly increased, and serious crimes remained nearly unchanged.^[40]

Further investigation into Flock Safety's claims across other cities, such as Fort Worth, Dayton, and Lexington, showed a pattern of selective data use and potentially misleading marketing practices. Flock marketing overstated the effectiveness of its technology in reducing crime.^[40]

Critics argue that Flock's claims about its impact on crime rates lack rigorous scientific backing and might not hold up under closer scrutiny. Despite these criticisms, some law enforcement officials praise the technology for its utility in solving cases. Skepticism remains among academics and some law enforcement officials regarding the actual efficacy of Flock's technology in reducing overall crime rates, suggesting a need for more transparent and comprehensive analysis.^[40]

There are privacy concerns about Flock's systems.^{[41][42][43][44]} Flock's surveillance technology is often criticized for its broadening of public surveillance, particularly affecting minorities, and leading to a chilling effect on civil liberties, as described by privacy experts and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that ALPRs like Flock create more problems than they solve.^[45] There are concerns that Flock's system may cause harm, especially to minorities.^[46]

Privacy expert Jodi Daniels warns Flock's technology "creates an environment where individuals may feel as though they are under constant surveillance. This can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and other civil liberties, as people might become hesitant to express themselves or participate in certain activities due to the fear of being recorded and possibly monitored by law enforcement."^[47]

The American Civil Liberties Union released a report in March 2022 criticizing both Flock Safety's business model and its products.^[48] In 2023, the ACLU acknowledged some uses of ALPRS could be acceptable, but emphasized the need for careful controls:^[14]

We don't find every use of ALPRs objectionable. For example, we do not generally object to using them to check license plates against lists of stolen cars, for AMBER Alerts, or for toll collection, provided they are deployed and used fairly and subject to proper checks and balances, such as ensuring devices are not disproportionately deployed in low-income communities and communities of color, and that the "hot lists" they are run against are legitimate and up to date. But there's no reason the technology should be used to create comprehensive records of everybody's comings and goings — and that is precisely what ALPR databases like Flock's are doing. In our country, the government should not be tracking us unless it has individualized suspicion that we're engaged in wrongdoing.

Flock states its cameras and technology only captures data from vehicles, and the machine learning is specifically designed not to identify people. Flock has defended itself against "myths" about license plate readers.^[49] Although Flock Safety claims their cameras reduce crime, opponents argue that there is no clear evidence for this.^[50] In 2023, Atlanta police (Cobb County) credited a Flock license plate recognition system for helping them track down a gunman.^[51]

Flock's surveillance model has also brought debates into towns between supporters and opponents of the technology.^{[52][53][54][55]} Menlo Park, California opted out of a contract in 2023, bucking trends of nearby cities.^[56]

A 2023 report by the University of Michigan found:^[57][58]

"Recent studies examining the accuracy of ALPRs show that they often misread license plates, leading to disastrous real-world consequences, including violent arrests of innocent people. ALPR errors arise not only from shortcomings internal to their technology but from the hot lists they depend on to provide matches.

Even when ALPRs work as intended, the vast majority of images taken are not connected to any criminal activity. As most jurisdictions have no policies regarding retention limits, many agencies keep these scans on innocent people indefinitely. This can allow the government to maintain an overarching and potentially unconstitutional level of surveillance and can lead to abuse.

In some instances, officers have misused confidential databases 'to get information on romantic partners, business associates, neighbors, journalists and others for reasons that have nothing to do with daily police work.' Professional abuse includes targeting religious minorities and communities of color. Reproductive rights advocates are now raising alarms about the ways police and others could use ALPRs for the targeting of abortion clinics in the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade."

Critics argue for stringent controls and limitations on ALPR use to prevent disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities and to safeguard against the creation of expansive surveillance databases. Inaccuracies in ALPR technology have led to wrongful arrests and privacy invasions, raising significant concerns about the technology's reliability and the potential for misuse.

In June 2024, a judge in Norfolk, Virginia ruled that collecting location data from the city's 172 Flock ALPRs constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case when collected without a warrant. In his ruling, the judge likened ALPR location databases to tracking devices, whose use by police was previously found unconstitutional without a warrant in United States v. Jones.^[59]

Later, in October 2024, the Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the Norfolk Police Department on behalf of two local residents, similarly asserting that the department's use of Flock ALPRs constitutes illegal surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment.^{[60][61][62][63]}

In at least two documented cases, Flock ALPR systems have been misused by police officers to stalk their domestic partners.^[64]

In October 2022, a police detective in Kechi, Kansas was found to have used Flock's system to follow his estranged wife over the course of a month. His department has access to Flock ALPR data from other cities' ALPR networks, including the Wichita Police Department, which allowed him to track his wife's whereabouts across multiple communities. Following an audit of officers' database access, the detective was arrested, and his state law enforcement certification was later revoked.^[65][66]

In another case, the chief of police in Sedgwick, Kansas, Lee Nygaard, used Flock's systems to track his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, searching for their vehicles on the Flock database more than 200 times from June to October 2023. He searched for their vehicles under the guise of investigating drug abuses, child abduction, and suspicious activity, and used a police vehicle to follow and harass his victims.^[67] Nygaard resigned amidst the controversy, lost his law enforcement certification, and was sentenced to 18 months' probation. Flock refused media requests for an interview following the incident, and declined to comment on previous reports of abuses of their database.^[64]

In Española, New Mexico, two motorists were stopped and detained by police after Flock ALPRs mistook their vehicles for those associated with crimes. In one case, a 21-year-old woman was stopped after a Flock ALPR misread her vehicle's license plate as one reported stolen, and she and her 12-year-old sister were arrested at gunpoint before officers discovered the error. In the other, a 17-year-old high school student was stopped, searched, and arrested at gunpoint by a state trooper after his vehicle was photographed by a Flock ALPR and mistaken for a similar vehicle spotted near a crime scene. Both motorists sued the city of Española for damages, alleging negligence and violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment.^[68][69]

Flock has been accused by multiple state transportation and public safety agencies of installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission. A 2024 Forbes report found that Flock had installed hundreds of devices on public roads in multiple states without securing necessary permits.^[2][19]

In one case, in Treasure Island, Florida, a Flock ALPR was installed on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way without the agency's permission. Days after its installation in February 2023, FDOT demanded its removal, an order Flock did not comply with until the following November. The agency later required Flock to conduct a review of all of its installations in Florida, which identified over 800 ALPRs out of regulatory compliance.^[19]

From 2022 to 2024, the South Carolina Department of Transportation identified more than 200 Flock ALPRs installed on public roads without required permits. In July 2023, the agency issued a moratorium on new installations of Flock ALPRs, and ordered a safety and compliance review of all existing installations.^[19]

Flock was sued in March 2023 by the North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board, which accused the company of installing its devices for multiple years without obtaining a license from the board, which is required to install certain electronic security equipment in the state.^[1] An injunction issued in the case in November 2023 prohibited Flock from installing any new equipment in North Carolina without securing a license;^[70] a second injunction in March 2024 required Flock to apply for the license or face a ban from doing business in North Carolina.^[71] Following the rulings, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill terminated a contract with Flock, citing the company's violation of state law.^[70]

In September 2024, the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a cease and desist notice, ordering Flock to cease operations on private property in Texas until it obtained a required license to provide private security services in the state.^[72] Flock announced in October that they had completed the Texas licensure process.^[73]

• Media related to Flock Safety at Wikimedia Commons