Flock says its new tool will help identify police abuse, but hasn’t explained how it works

SINGAPORE, 14 AUGUST 2026 —

Flock Rolls Out New Tools to Curb Police Abuse of License Plate Readers, But Transparency Questions Remain

Flock announced on Thursday that it is now recommending police departments reduce data retention periods from 30 days to seven days, with an "Evidence Mode" available for exceptional cases requiring extended storage. Customers can also set limits on data sharing based on the type of offense under investigation.

The most significant change is the mandatory activation of "Audit Assistance," a tool launched in April that Flock says detects abnormal activity and flags it for administrator review. The company now requires all customers to enable it by the end of the year.

According to Flock, more than one-third of its customers have already activated Audit Assistance, which it claims has helped identify and stop abuse. However, the company has not provided detailed explanations of how the tool functions, raising concerns about its effectiveness and transparency. Flock has stated that Audit Assistance is not based on machine learning or artificial intelligence but rather operates as a data tool that flags atypical search patterns for further review.

For example, the system may flag instances where a user searches for the same license plate using multiple different case codes, which could indicate potential misuse.

Despite these claims, Flock has not disclosed critical details such as the specific patterns the tool is designed to surface, its false positive and false negative rates, or whether it has undergone third-party audits. The company did not respond to requests for additional information from TechCrunch.

The lack of transparency has drawn criticism from privacy advocates and experts. Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), questioned the tool's effectiveness, stating that Flock has not provided evidence to demonstrate its consistency in addressing abuse. "Unless we know the number of officers misusing the system, we cannot conclude if Flock and its auditing tools are catching 95% of violators or 5%," Marlow said.

He called for an independent evaluation of the tool to assess its actual effectiveness.

Cooper Quintin, a security researcher and senior public interest technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), expressed skepticism about the tool's impact. "If it does work, law enforcement will figure out ways to get around it," Quintin said. He emphasized that accountability ultimately depends on whether abusers are caught and held accountable, rather than the existence of the tool itself.

Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, acknowledged that making Audit Assistance mandatory is a step in the right direction. However, she stressed that the tool needs to be audited to ensure its reliability. "In theory, it's a great idea, but we need more information about how it works in practice," she said.

Flock's announcements come amid growing concerns over the misuse of ALPR systems by law enforcement. Earlier this week, three former Georgia sheriff’s deputies were arrested and accused of using Flock cameras to stalk individuals with whom they had personal relationships. Bibb County Sheriff David Davis specifically cited Flock’s Audit Assistance tool for uncovering the misuse in this case.

The company's policy changes also include recommendations for shorter data retention periods, which Flock says will help balance accountability with privacy concerns. The new "Evidence Mode" allows customers to retain data for longer periods in exceptional cases, provided a specific case number is used. Additionally, customers can now set limits on data sharing based on the type of offense under investigation, further restricting access to sensitive information.

Flock's tools are widely used by law enforcement agencies across the United States, with over 4,000 agencies reportedly using its ALPR systems. The company has faced scrutiny in the past over reports of misuse by its customers, including instances of officers using the technology for personal reasons, such as tracking romantic partners or surveilling individuals without legitimate cause.

In Malaysia, where surveillance technology is also a topic of debate, Flock's tools could have implications for privacy and law enforcement practices. The Malaysian government has increasingly adopted surveillance technologies, including ALPR systems, to enhance public safety and enforce traffic regulations. However, concerns about data privacy and potential misuse remain significant.

Local privacy advocates have called for greater transparency and accountability in the use of such technologies. "The introduction of tools like Audit Assistance is a positive step, but without clear details on how they operate, it is difficult to assess their effectiveness," said a spokesperson for the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM). The commission has previously highlighted the need for robust oversight mechanisms to prevent abuse of surveillance technologies.

Regional experts also point to the broader trend of increasing surveillance in Southeast Asia, driven by both security concerns and technological advancements. Countries like Singapore and Thailand have also deployed ALPR systems, though the regulatory frameworks governing their use vary widely. In Malaysia, the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 provides some safeguards, but critics argue that enforcement remains inconsistent.

For Flock, the new tools represent an effort to address criticism and improve its reputation amid ongoing controversies. The company has emphasized its commitment to accountability and transparency, though the lack of detailed information about Audit Assistance has left many questions unanswered. As law enforcement agencies continue to adopt ALPR systems, the need for robust oversight and independent audits of surveillance tools becomes increasingly critical.

Looking ahead, the effectiveness of Flock's Audit Assistance tool will likely depend on whether it can provide concrete evidence of its capabilities and undergo independent evaluation. For now, the tool remains shrouded in ambiguity, leaving stakeholders and privacy advocates seeking clearer answers. As the debate over surveillance technology and accountability continues, the onus will be on companies like Flock to demonstrate that their tools can deliver on their promises without compromising privacy or civil liberties.

Related: Singapore