Flock is imposing new guardrails on its police tech after reports of officer abuse and canceled contracts. The company requires officers to enter a criminal case number before searches, a move criticized as easily circumvented. It also mandates an automatic auditing system to flag suspicious activity, though details on accuracy remain undisclosed. Data retention is limited to seven days (down from 30), and agencies can restrict searches to specific reasons. Despite these changes, critics like the ACLU argue they are insufficient. Chad Marlow, an ACLU counsel, notes the backlash stems from Flock’s scale of surveillance, not just individual abuses. Flock’s CEO, Garrett Langley, attributes customer loss to misinformation, claiming the company does not do facial recognition or sell data. However, critics highlight past lies about capabilities. Cities and states are dropping Flock contracts or banning license plate readers altogether, with 30+ cities leaving in 2023. Flock defends its changes as incremental but faces pressure to adopt stricter safeguards. The company’s network of 120,000 cameras remains a focal point of privacy concerns.

The new rules aim to balance law enforcement needs with privacy fears. Officers can still abuse loopholes, such as using generic terms for search purposes. Flock’s auditing tool, while mandatory, lacks transparency. Critics emphasize that without independent oversight, the system remains vulnerable to misuse. The debate reflects broader tensions between surveillance technology and civil liberties.

Flock’s response contrasts with demands for drastic reforms. While some agencies switch to competitors like Axon or Motorola, Flock claims most contracts remain intact. The backlash, fueled by figures like Tucker Carlson and legal challenges, has forced the company into a defensive stance. Experts argue that without systemic changes—such as warrant requirements for data access—the technology enables mass surveillance. Flock’s focus on guardrails over structural reforms underscores the challenge of reconciling public distrust with corporate interests.

The article underscores a pivotal moment for Flock. Its changes may placate some critics but risk further alienating others. The lack of transparency in auditing and case verification highlights ongoing risks. As states and cities confront surveillance ethics, Flock’s path forward hinges on whether incremental steps suffice or if deeper accountability is needed.