Flock’s New License Plate Reader Safeguards Leave Major Surveillance Loopholes
Flock adds safeguards to 120,000 plate readers, but unverified case numbers, long retention and cross-state searches fuel growing surveillance backlash.
Summary
MIT Technology Review reported on August 17, 2026, that Flock, a police technology company with about 120,000 automatic license plate readers across the US, announced August 13 safeguards: software to flag abnormal searches and mandatory criminal case numbers. The Washington Post found 50 cases of officers misusing Flock and rival systems, often to stalk or harass women. A Wisconsin officer allegedly searched his former girlfriend’s car 179 times, while another woman said a police chief stalked her, leaving nobody to report him to.
Flock confirmed it does not match case numbers against department records, so officers can enter bogus ones, as some previously lied around safeguards. Critics say its national network creates mass surveillance because agencies can search records from other cities and states, then retain data for months or years. Flock says 90% of searches occur within one week and recommends seven days, but lets agencies keep records indefinitely. Defenders cite kidnappings and otherwise unseen car photos, yet the system’s crime-solving or prevention record remains unanswered. Proposed alternatives include verified numbers with stronger audits, broad access only for active Amber Alerts or similar emergencies, and collection, sharing and retention limited to demonstrated need.
Cities have canceled contracts amid civil-liberties backlash. Some chose competitors, others paused while residents develop police rules, and states are pursuing limits or bans. ACLU senior policy counsel Chad Marlow said laws beat company guidelines and joked the acceptable Flock contract is unsigned. CEO Garrett Langley said he will probably always differ from the ACLU. Narrowing access could undermine Flock’s model, which turned readers used since the 1990s for tolls and ticketing into a data-rich, cross-agency network supporting a reported $8 billion evaluation.
Positives
- Software that flags abnormal searches and mandatory criminal case numbers could expose some officer misuse of Flock’s platform.
- Seven-day recommended retention is substantially narrower than allowing agencies to preserve license plate records for months or years.
- 90% of Flock searches occur within one week of an incident, supporting shorter retention periods without eliminating most reported use.
- Verified case numbers and Amber Alert-specific access could strengthen audits while preserving wider searches for kidnappings and similar emergencies.
- Cities and states are reconsidering contracts and drafting rules that could impose enforceable limits on police surveillance.
Risks & concerns
- The Washington Post identified 50 cases of officers misusing Flock and competing systems, often to stalk or harass women.
- A Wisconsin officer allegedly searched his former girlfriend’s car 179 times, while another alleged stalker was the local police chief.
- Flock does not verify mandatory case numbers, allowing officers to submit bogus entries after some previously bypassed other safeguards.
- Agencies can search data collected across jurisdictions and retain it indefinitely despite Flock’s seven-day recommendation.
- Flock’s reported $8 billion evaluation rests on a broad, data-rich network, creating a business risk if access and retention are narrowed.
- Flock’s effectiveness in solving or preventing crime remains unanswered, according to the article.