Flock Safety: Eroding Your Privacy & Keeping You Safe with Surveillance

In an age where technology increasingly permeates our daily lives, the rise of sophisticated surveillance systems raises critical questions about the balance between public safety and individual privacy. One company at the forefront of this debate is Flock Safety, a major player in automated license plate recognition (LPR) technology. This blog post delves into the intricacies of Flock Safety’s technology, its implications for privacy, and the broader conversation about surveillance in our communities.

What is Flock Safety?

Flock Safety specializes in LPR systems that use cameras to capture images of vehicles. But these aren’t just any cameras. Flock’s technology uses artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to identify not only license plate numbers but also a range of vehicle characteristics such as make, model, color, and even unique features like bumper stickers.

This advanced system, which Flock calls “vehicle fingerprint technology,” uploads all the captured data to a central cloud server, creating a vast database of vehicle sightings. Operating continuously, this system records the movements of nearly every vehicle within its range.

Key Features of Flock Safety’s Technology

“Hot List”: A key feature is Flock’s “Hot List,” which provides real-time alerts to law enforcement when a vehicle associated with a wanted person or stolen vehicle is detected. This integrates with databases like the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
Expansion Beyond LPR: Flock is also expanding into other surveillance technologies. Its products include Raven, a gunshot detection system, and Nova, a “public safety data platform” designed to supplement ALPR data with information from various sources, potentially enabling tracking of individuals.

The Privacy Dilemma

While Flock Safety emphasizes the benefits of its technology in aiding criminal investigations and reducing crime, the widespread deployment of such systems raises significant privacy concerns. For one, Flock enables easy identification and tracking of the movements of specific people without a warrant or court order.

Mass Surveillance of Innocent Individuals: Flock’s cameras capture data on all vehicles, not just those suspected of crimes, leading to a detailed record of people’s movements and routines. This indiscriminate data collection raises Fourth Amendment concerns.
Data Retention and Long-Term Tracking: Data retention policies vary, with Flock’s default being 30 days, creating a substantial historical record of where vehicles have been. The lack of standardized retention periods raises concerns about potential misuse and long-term tracking.
Data Sharing: Flock data is shared with law enforcement and, in some cases, private entities, raising concerns about its use beyond initial crime investigation purposes.
Potential for Misuse and Abuse: There’s a risk of the system being misused by those with access, as illustrated by incidents like the one involving a Kechi Police lieutenant who allegedly used the system to stalk his estranged wife.
Errors and Misidentification: The technology isn’t foolproof. Cases like the one in Aurora, Colorado, where a Black family was wrongly detained at gunpoint due to a mistaken alert, highlight the potential for devastating consequences due to errors.

Case Studies: When Surveillance Technology Goes Wrong

Several real-world incidents underscore the privacy and safety risks associated with Flock Safety’s technology:

Aurora, Colorado (2020): A Black family was wrongly pulled over and handcuffed due to a license plate reader error, resulting in a $1.9 million settlement.
Kechi, Kansas (2022): A police lieutenant misused the system to stalk his estranged wife, highlighting the potential for abuse.
Española, New Mexico: A Flock camera mistakenly identified a car as stolen, demonstrating the potential for errors to disrupt people’s lives.

The ACLU’s Stance

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been a vocal critic of Flock Safety, raising alarms about the creation of a mass surveillance system that can chill civil liberties.

The ACLU recommends opposing mass surveillance ALPR systems and, if that’s not possible, implementing strict regulations, such as limiting data retention and ensuring transparency and community oversight. They also advocate for community action in response to locally installed LPRs that haven’t been independently evaluated.

Taking Control of Your Digital Footprint

In a world of increasing surveillance, managing your digital footprint has become essential. Your social media presence can be harvested, and weaponized against you without you ever realizing, or through physically scanning through your device. Our app, Redact.dev offers tools to help you control your online presence by removing past content and managing shared personal data.

By taking proactive steps to protect your information online, you can mitigate the potential for it to be combined with surveillance data, such as that collected by Flock, to create an intrusive profile.

Conclusion

Flock Safety’s license plate reader technology presents both opportunities and challenges. It’s vital that communities, policymakers, and individuals engage in informed discussions to establish clear guidelines and regulations that balance the use of surveillance technology with the protection of privacy rights.