What Flock’s defenders are missing

Flock, the police-tech giant, recently made changes to its platform intended to prevent misuse for illegal or illegitimate purposes, including stalking. However, these changes contain significant loopholes. For instance, officers can still enter false case numbers, just as they have previously used to bypass other safeguards. Moreover, the new measures do not address broader concerns about Flock transforming into a mass surveillance network, leading to backlash from cities canceling contracts and states considering laws to limit or ban license plate readers.

Defenders argue that if these cameras help solve crimes, such as catching kidnappers, the issue is moot. Yet, the more crucial question centers on the kind of crime-fighting system Flock aims to build. Its network's design results from decisions about data collection, accessibility, retention, and sharing—choices that establish the terms of the balance between security and civil liberties.

While believing in technology's role in crime-solving doesn't necessitate blindly accepting these terms, one could envision a system requiring officers to use legitimate case numbers that match police department records for searches. This would strengthen safeguards and create a more useful audit trail. Alternatively, searches could be limited to active Amber Alerts or similar emergencies, preserving the network's value in emergencies without accepting mass surveillance.

Additionally, the extent and duration of data collection should be reconsidered. Flock's network predominantly operates nationally, allowing police from different jurisdictions to search and retain data for extended periods. However, with 90% of searches occurring within a week of an incident, a more targeted approach might be beneficial: retaining and sharing data only as widely and for as long as it aids in solving crimes.

Narrowing the surveillance's scope could lead to critics not relenting. The ACLU's Chad Marlow suggests that the most acceptable Flock contract is never signed, emphasizing that setting limits on surveillance requires new laws rather than just Flock's guidelines. Flock CEO Garrett Langley maintains he holds a different view from the ACLU.

Nevertheless, narrowing the technology's scope could jeopardize the company's value proposition to police departments. License plate readers have existed since the 1990s, primarily for tolls and ticketing. Flock's business model—and its recent $8 billion valuation—center on transforming its cameras into a massive, nationwide network collecting rich data, offering police departments an advanced way to analyze their own and others' data.

Flock's position may soon be challenged as cities cancel contracts, switch to competitors, or await community discussions on how technology should be used for crime-solving and the level of surveillance they are willing to accept.