Flock Safety Tries to Curb Police Abuse of Surveillance Cameras
· design
Flock Safety’s Band-Aid Solution: A Glimpse of a Larger Pattern
The recent announcement from Flock Safety’s CEO Garrett Langley regarding measures to curb police abuse of its surveillance cameras has sparked a mix of reactions. Some see it as a step in the right direction, while others view it as a half-hearted attempt to address concerns surrounding mass surveillance.
Flock Safety’s new features include mandatory activation of its Audit Assistance feature, which flags “abnormal activity” for administrative review and automatically suspends users pending a review. However, networked cameras are inherently incompatible with a free society, regardless of any added “guardrails.” As Chris Gilliard notes in his book Luxury Surveillance, the question remains whether these new features will prevent the same abuses that have dogged Flock Safety for years.
The company has also limited license plate scan retention time to seven days. However, this change still allows agencies to maintain longer-term data if deemed necessary for an investigation. The definition of “abnormal activity” and who gets to decide it remain unclear. Previously, the executive stated that crime is defined by the state or municipality, leaving room for interpretation.
Restricting information sharing between agencies seems like a step in the right direction, but this still leaves the decision up to police departments themselves. Flock Safety’s new measures essentially allow law enforcement agencies to police their own behavior rather than being held accountable by external standards.
The rollout of these features comes as concerns about mass surveillance have reached a fever pitch. The reversal of Roe v Wade has highlighted the dangers of unchecked data collection and sharing between states. With over 6,000 communities across the US now equipped with Flock Safety’s cameras, serious questions arise about what this means for our collective understanding of privacy and security.
As cities begin to drop or reconsider their contracts with Flock Safety, it becomes clear that this is not just a company-specific issue – but rather a symptom of a larger societal problem. A growing citizen uprising against these cameras has led more than 80 cities to publicly consider dropping their contracts. It’s time to ask: what kind of society do we want to build? One where our movements are tracked and monitored at all times, or one where our freedom is respected?
The path forward requires a fundamental shift in how we approach surveillance and data collection. Rather than tinkering with the edges of an inherently problematic system, it’s time for us to rethink what we’re getting ourselves into.
Reader Views
- NFNoa F. · graphic designer
Flock Safety's new measures are a Band-Aid solution at best, treating the symptoms of police abuse rather than addressing the root issue: that networked cameras are inherently incompatible with a free society. The company's reliance on internal review processes and vague definitions of "abnormal activity" only perpetuates the problem. What's missing from this conversation is an acknowledgment of the long-term data retention implications, particularly in cases where license plate scan records are used to build profiles on entire communities. This isn't about policing police behavior; it's about accountability through external standards.
- TDTheo D. · type designer
Flock Safety's attempt to add oversight to its surveillance cameras feels like patching holes in a sinking ship. While restricting license plate scan retention and limiting information sharing between agencies are steps forward, they're still within the control of police departments who've proven themselves unreliable stewards of data. We need more transparency around what constitutes "abnormal activity" – not just for users but also for accountability. Without stricter external standards, Flock Safety's new measures will merely provide a veneer of legitimacy to an inherently problematic system.
- TSThe Studio Desk · editorial
Flock Safety's attempt to curb police abuse of its surveillance cameras feels like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. While the added features might slow down abuses, they don't address the fundamental issue: these cameras are a tool for mass surveillance that can be used by law enforcement however they see fit. The company's reliance on vague terms like "abnormal activity" and police-defined crime will only perpetuate the problem of unchecked power. We need more than just Band-Aid solutions – we need a wholesale reevaluation of our security state and its relationship to technology.