Talk:Flock Safety

Controversy section moved to talk page for discussion

Per Wikipedia:Controversy sections, I am moving this section to talk page for discussion and potential reconstruction based on a proper determination of noteworthiness of points raised. BD2412 T 14:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

All of these are well-sourced examples of potential issues with this company's technology, and their potential societal impacts render them sufficiently noteworthy. 42-BRT (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The section regarding ongoing litigation pertinent to the legality of this company's operations under federal law is particularly noteworthy and without doubt warrants inclusion in this article. 42-BRT (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

We generally avoid including "ongoing litigation" because literally anyone can file a lawsuit claiming literally anything. Litigation becomes noteworthy when there is an actual adjudication of liability, and this adjudication is reported in reliable sources. Furthermore, not every instance of a use of technology is noteworthy for the article on that technology. We don't include in the hammer article every report of a murder being committed with a hammer; we don't include in our articles on various makes and models of firearms individual misuses of those firearms, whether by criminals or by police. BD2412 T 20:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's stick to the 4A case for the moment. The litigation in Virginia is definitely noteworthy, because a major public interest law firm is challenging the constitutionality of the primary service that this company offers to government clients. It is a credible challenge (as the federal judge in that case asserted) to the primary selling point of the company's flagship product. It challenges arguably the most fundamental aspect of their operations. I'd liken it to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which challenged the U.S. Food & Drug Admin.'s ability to approve medications, similarly one of the primary functions of that organization. I imagine that the FDA's page included mention of that lawsuit before it was decided.

As for the discussion about why Honda Civic doesn't include every crime ever committed with that vehicle (or whatever other examples you use in that analogy) - I'd be happy to carry on that debate where you mentioned it earlier. 42-BRT (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that point is well-taken, and have restored the Fourth Amendment case (minus the citation to the complaint, which is a primary source, and should not be used in a Wikipedia article, and the motion practice at the end). However, I would caution that your interpretation of that content is a bit off. The constitutionality of the use of the product here is not being challenged, just the use of data in prosecutions. A win for the challenger would not force the removal of these cameras, it would just prohibit their introduction into evidence in criminal proceedings. BD2412 T 01:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

We generally avoid including "ongoing litigation" because literally anyone can file a lawsuit claiming literally anything. Who is we? What policy are you referring to? Kire1975 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The sections I added should be included the talk page does not establish that these should not be included. I agree that they should be summarized and some of the original content was overly detailed. however some coverage of these events is due. Czarking0 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0: General problems of ALPRs should be in the ALPR article, and I have added them there. Misuse of resources by public officials is fairly heavily penalized by their departments, but is hardly restricted to one type of technology or one manufacturer of that technology. BD2412 T 19:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Sources that discuss general ALPR problems should be covered there. However we should seek to follow the sources which in this case attribute specific problems to Flock not ALPR systems generally. Several RSIS sources have been cited in this section to verify claims with which several editors, myself included, indicated are due for inclusion. From talk I only gather yourself supporting this position which I do not believe is a policy based argument. I conclude that consensus supports some level of inclusion though I am happy to debate further what level of detail is warranted. Czarking0 (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Same discussion we have been having. The same reason I am against including individual cancellations and such is the same reason I would be against including things like it being used to help find criminals. WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Sources such as this show its not a Flock issue and seems like some editors have tried to use Wikipedia to paint it as if it is. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

By this logic the fact that it has been used to help find criminals is also true of general ALPR and should not be included. Obviously that is ridiculous logic and both claims should be included. Your analysis of the politico source is poor. It providers further evidence that this should be included on the Flock page as the article highlights Flock as particularly controversial among ALPR providers.

Summary style is important for addressing your concern. I can agree that not every individual cancellation is due. However noting some of the trends that have occurred and potentially highlighting a single example per trend is due. Czarking0 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

"I can agree that not every individual cancellation is due, I am glad we agree there. I believe adding every incident like others have tried in the past actually muddies the page and makes it difficult to read. You recommended that we should highlight an example or trend to go with the summary wording. Do you have a suggestion on that addition? I posted this below in another thread but did a summary in userspace which is an overview of the cancellations. Maybe there is one that gets covered outside of local coverage that you could propose? Of course there are a few others here who would need to opine.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think if I take out the last sentence this diff has the level of summary we are shooting for here. Czarking0 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

As opposed to the one I presented or are you saying it should be added to the one I presented above?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are talking about this? If so then neither. I see (and I believe the sources support) the "installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission" as somewhat separate from concerns about privacy generally. Though I think both are notable. I would suggest a combo:

As of 2025, Flock is used by over 6,000 municipalities in the United States. Some cities have stopped working with Flock for a variety of reasons.

Flock has been accused by multiple state transportation and public safety agencies of installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission. A 2024 Forbes report found that Flock had installed hundreds of devices on public roads in multiple states without securing necessary permits. In one case, in Treasure Island, Florida, a Flock ALPR was installed on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way without the agency's permission. Days after its installation in February 2023, FDOT demanded its removal, an order Flock did not comply with until the following November. The agency later required Flock to conduct a review of all of its installations in Florida, which identified over 800 ALPRs out of regulatory compliance.

Other communities have expressed privacy concerns. Add one example here Czarking0 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This leaves out the immigration part but I think that is already covered at the end of the article. Czarking0 (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

This does not seem to reduce the listing of individual incidents. It just adds more summary. I am contending that we do not need to list them per NOTEVERYTHING. What determines which incidents make the cut and which ones do not? Why keep out the number of jurisdictions that use it as that seems like good context? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you should reread what I wrote Czarking0 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

You may not have meant it that way but it seemed condescending the way it was written. If I missed something, I will gladly look closer if you point out what I may have missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

"As of 2025, Flock is used by over 6,000 municipalities in the United States." first line of my response. AGF Czarking0 (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why the rub. I did AGF but saying "I think you should" did not seem civil. I will take another glance sometime later today. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

"I think you should" is not uncivil. Be resilient. Czarking0 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The way you do not respond here for days until I make an edit to the page and then say "sigh" is not constructive. I think this project would be better served if you did not participate on this page. Czarking0 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You actually started to add on the 25th. The day after we were still discussing. Regardless, the same day you can see how a user cited WP:DEADLINE below. Sorry you feel I should not be editing the page. Not wanting me to be involved in editing because you disagree with my contention is not really assuming good faith though. If you would like to discuss content, please do so. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

sigh Czarking0 (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree there is no deadline however there is no need to stall progress over silence. Tomorrow I plan to implement the suggestion above. Czarking0 (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

What is your policy based objection to this proposal? Czarking0 (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Given that there is not opposition to this on the talk page I'll add the suggested text to the article Czarking0 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I oppose, specifically, the addition of random individual anecdotes and one-off stories, which are functionally trivia, and make the article a thematic mess, distracting from the very real privacy concerns already well-outlined in that section. BD2412 T 16:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think an example is warranted for each of the main themes. I am open to other ones. I think the current Forbes statement is a sufficient example for the unauthorized installations Czarking0 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all involved that there is no WP:DEADLINE, and no reason not to take the time to iron out broadly agreeable and proportional and policy-compliant content. BD2412 T 01:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for this.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

== Controversies and litigation ==

Efficacy concerns

Critics argue that Flock's claims about its impact on crime rates lack rigorous scientific backing and might not hold up under closer scrutiny. Despite these criticisms, some law enforcement officials praise the technology for its utility in solving cases. Skepticism remains among academics and some law enforcement officials regarding the actual efficacy of Flock's technology in reducing overall crime rates, suggesting a need for more transparent and comprehensive analysis.

Privacy concerns

There are privacy concerns about Flock's systems. Flock's surveillance technology is often criticized for its broadening of public surveillance, particularly affecting minorities, and leading to a chilling effect on civil liberties, as described by privacy experts and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that ALPRs like Flock create more problems than they solve. There are concerns that Flock's system may cause harm, especially to minorities.

Privacy expert Jodi Daniels warns Flock's technology "creates an environment where individuals may feel as though they are under constant surveillance. This can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and other civil liberties, as people might become hesitant to express themselves or participate in certain activities due to the fear of being recorded and possibly monitored by law enforcement."

The American Civil Liberties Union released a report in March 2022 criticizing both Flock Safety's business model and its products. In 2023, the ACLU acknowledged some uses of ALPRS could be acceptable, but emphasized the need for careful controls:

We don't find every use of ALPRs objectionable. For example, we do not generally object to using them to check license plates against lists of stolen cars, for AMBER Alerts, or for toll collection, provided they are deployed and used fairly and subject to proper checks and balances, such as ensuring devices are not disproportionately deployed in low-income communities and communities of color, and that the "hot lists" they are run against are legitimate and up to date. But there's no reason the technology should be used to create comprehensive records of everybody's comings and goings — and that is precisely what ALPR databases like Flock's are doing. In our country, the government should not be tracking us unless it has individualized suspicion that we're engaged in wrongdoing.

Flock states its cameras and technology only captures data from vehicles, and the machine learning is specifically designed not to identify people. Flock has defended itself against "myths" about license plate readers. Although Flock Safety claims their cameras reduce crime, opponents argue that there is no clear evidence for this. In 2023, Atlanta police (Cobb County) credited a Flock license plate recognition system for helping them track down a gunman.

Flock's surveillance model has also brought debates into towns between supporters and opponents of the technology. Menlo Park, California opted out of a contract in 2023, bucking trends of nearby cities.

A 2023 report by the University of Michigan found:

"Recent studies examining the accuracy of ALPRs show that they often misread license plates, leading to disastrous real-world consequences, including violent arrests of innocent people. ALPR errors arise not only from shortcomings internal to their technology but from the hot lists they depend on to provide matches.

Even when ALPRs work as intended, the vast majority of images taken are not connected to any criminal activity. As most jurisdictions have no policies regarding retention limits, many agencies keep these scans on innocent people indefinitely. This can allow the government to maintain an overarching and potentially unconstitutional level of surveillance and can lead to abuse.

In some instances, officers have misused confidential databases 'to get information on romantic partners, business associates, neighbors, journalists and others for reasons that have nothing to do with daily police work.' Professional abuse includes targeting religious minorities and communities of color. Reproductive rights advocates are now raising alarms about the ways police and others could use ALPRs for the targeting of abortion clinics in the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade."

Critics argue for stringent controls and limitations on ALPR use to prevent disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities and to safeguard against the creation of expansive surveillance databases. Inaccuracies in ALPR technology have led to wrongful arrests and privacy invasions, raising significant concerns about the technology's reliability and the potential for misuse.

Misuse

In at least two documented cases, Flock ALPR systems have been misused by police officers to stalk their domestic partners.

On several occasions Flock ALPRs have mistaken vehicles for those associated with crimes leading to families being arrested at gunpoint. Municipalities have settled for millions of dollar in damages as a result of these incidents.

I think the stalking should be included here as a direct flock concern rather than a general ALPR concern. If I google ALPR stalk all of the sources on the first page reference Flock.Czarking0 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Also the section should be labled misuse as it is here rather than potential misuse since actual misuse is described.Czarking0 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Unauthorized installations

Flock has been accused by multiple state transportation and public safety agencies of installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission. A 2024 Forbes report found that Flock had installed hundreds of devices on public roads in multiple states without securing necessary permits.

In one case, in Treasure Island, Florida, a Flock ALPR was installed on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way without the agency's permission. Days after its installation in February 2023, FDOT demanded its removal, an order Flock did not comply with until the following November. The agency later required Flock to conduct a review of all of its installations in Florida, which identified over 800 ALPRs out of regulatory compliance.

From 2022 to 2024, the South Carolina Department of Transportation identified more than 200 Flock ALPRs installed on public roads without required permits. In July 2023, the agency issued a moratorium on new installations of Flock ALPRs, and ordered a safety and compliance review of all existing installations.

Flock was sued in March 2023 by the North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board, which accused the company of installing its devices for multiple years without obtaining a license from the board, which is required to install certain electronic security equipment in the state. An injunction issued in the case in November 2023 prohibited Flock from installing any new equipment in North Carolina without securing a license; a second injunction in March 2024 required Flock to apply for the license or face a ban from doing business in North Carolina. Following the rulings, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill terminated a contract with Flock, citing the company's violation of state law.

In September 2024, the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a cease and desist notice, ordering Flock to cease operations on private property in Texas until it obtained a required license to provide private security services in the state. Flock announced in October that they had completed the Texas licensure process.

Hiring of incumbent California mayor

In February 2024, Flock hired Ulises Cabrera, the mayor of Moreno Valley, California, as a community engagement manager, a position Flock describes as meant to "guide law enforcement customers through the public procurement process" and "ensure... a positive regulatory environment" for the company and "ordinances that promote the use of Flock technology." Cabrera left the position in June 2024, but later campaigned on his approval of a citywide Flock ALPR network in his 2024 campaign for reelection as mayor, without disclosing that he was employed by the company.

Cabrera sued Flock in January 2025, alleging that Flock demanded that he use his position as mayor to benefit the company, and wrongfully terminated him when he refused. He also accused the company of underreporting the number of ALPRs it installed for a project in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, and that the company retaliated against him for raising concerns with the project. Flock denied all of Cabrera's allegations, and asserted that their hiring of a sitting mayor did not violate California's conflict-of-interest laws.

References

@BD2412: I agree we should not cover every interaction between mayors and flock safety. Due for inclusion would be events that see widespread coverage. When I google "flock mayor" the Denver interactions appear much more notable

@Czarking0: This sort of extrapolation is problematic. In order to say that "Flock has developed relationships with several mayors", particularly under the "Business model" heading, we need more than two articles each reporting an instance of the subject developing a relationship with a mayor. We need a source that actually says that developing relationships with mayors is an aspect of Flock's business model. Also, the source for Denver doesn't actually say anything at all about developing a relationship there, in the way this sentence suggests. Even if there was a source saying either of these things, how is that encyclopedic? Large companies frequently lobby or otherwise deal with elected officials, so unless there is coverage of the degree to which this occurs, this is not different than having a paragraph saying that a company employs a janitorial service to vacuum its office floors, or hires accountants to file its taxes. BD2412 T 15:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree but I am not overly attached to the wording. What do you think of Several mayors have supported Flock's use instead? Czarking0 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there a source that says "Several mayors have supported Flock's use"? There are a number of sources in the article describing Flock's business model in broad strokes, it is possible that one of those already addresses outreach to public officials. BD2412 T 16:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Counting is not OR. I my mind if we have sources showing how multiple mayors supported then we can say several. Do you have an issue with several, supported, or both? I believe the Cabrera verifies that Cabrera supported flock. Do you think the Denver source does not verify that Johnston supported flock? Czarking0 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The Denver article does not appear to suggest "support" even. The Denver mayor "asked the council to vote down the contract until a task force could address concerns surrounding the technology" but negotiated a free six-month extension to the existing contract to allow for further contract negotiations. While the renegotiation was spurred by civil liberty concerns, this Denver article actually notes that "there is no evidence that Denver's Flock data has been used for immigration enforcement". That aspect of criticism of the subject is already better covered with sources more expansively addressing the issue. BD2412 T 17:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will add this source as well with attribution.

Enormous pressure from community members led to Denver City Council unanimously voting down a proposed Flock contract extension in May. Immediately following this, Mayor Johnston endorsed the technology in interviews with local media, and vowed to continue its use in Denver despite the actions of the legislative branch. The mayor undemocratically pushed through a $498,500 contract extension for Flock in early August, just shy of the $500,000 contract review threshold for council action. Just one day after that quiet extension, the Johnston administration also pushed through a permit application for four new Flock cameras across the city to expand the surveillance network with no public notice. The mayor has continued to spread misinformation about various aspects of the technology.

Czarking0 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Additionally "Johnston’s defense of the cameras" Czarking0 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

We still don't have a single source for the proposition that "several mayors have supported Flock's use", and cannot permissibly synthesize such a determination from two reports. BD2412 T 18:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

What is the minimum number of reports then? It is not synthesis to summaries multiple instances of the same thing happening as several Czarking0 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The minimum number is one reliable source that says "several mayors have supported Flock's use". This is not just about whether mayors who support Flock exist, but about whether the phenomenon of mayors supporting Flock is itself notable. Consider, by comparison, the fact that the Denver article mentions a local socialist activist expressing opposition to Flock. If it were possible to find two sources mentioning local socialist activists expressing the same, would we add to the article that "several socialist activists have opposed Flock's use"? BD2412 T 18:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation as synthesis. This is a summary of multiple events which are due for inclusion. I agree if you have multiple sources/instances where a socialist movement has opposed flock then we should include that as well. Czarking0 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The direct language of WP:SYNTH is "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". BD2412 T 19:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not synth. SPADE and WP:CALC are also relevant. I can wikilawyer just as hard as you. If you would like I can include a footnote on several listing the names of the mayors. Czarking0 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Respecting the rules of the encyclopedia is not wikilawyering. I'm sure you're aware that since the beginning of this project, there have been those determined to vent grievances against disliked people or companies, on all sides of every issue, by adding every picayune potentially critical-seeming detail that they can find to that article. Ultimately what happens when that is allowed is that the article becomes a wall of text mixing unserious matters with the serious ones to the point that the reader cannot tell which is which. This company's work inherently raises serious questions of facilitating mass surveillance and loss of privacy and other civil liberties. These matters are raised in the lead and reflected in the article. Quibbling over including obviously unserious things like a one-time contract extension or the like detracts from the seriousness of these real and enduring concerns. BD2412 T 13:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I respect CALC here and cover the serious mayoral matter with a footnote. The ACLU and many other serious news sources are reporting this due to its notability. If it was trivial, they would not report it. Czarking0 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Be aware that the ACLU is not a "news source"; it is an advocacy organization that fundraises off of its advocacy. It is a reliable source for some purposes, but its reporting of things is in line with its organizational goals, not with any purpose of independent journalism. BD2412 T 15:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

True, attribution should be used in places where it is the only source to back the claims Czarking0 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

If an advocacy organization that is non-independent of a potentially contentious claim is the only source to back that claim, then an independent source is needed (and, if the claim is noteworthy, can usually be found). BD2412 T 03:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This is actually not the policy. INDEPENDENT is only from the article subject. ACLU is herein reliable, independent, and secondary. It is acceptable as a sole source. Czarking0 (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not adverse to the work of the ACLU, but as an organization they produce commentary specifically advocating against this article subject, and in the banner on the top of that page, they are fundraising in association with that advocacy. This is not more independent than a social media website owner who goes on his own platform and posts criticisms of rival platforms. BD2412 T 13:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This is like saying the NYT is fundraising in their reporting on Flock because they ask you to subscribe. A fundraising banner is nearly all ACLU articles. At beast you are describing a WP:COISOURCE which is accetable for use with attribution. Czarking0 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The New York Times is not asking you to subscribe to them for the purpose of putting a stop to the subject of their coverage. I'm not saying that we should not cite the ACLU, I'm saying that we should not use it as the sole source for any piece of information. We should not need to, in any case. If something is worth covering, it will be covered in the regular media. BD2412 T 17:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though at times ACLU will make a good biased source due to its notability. Especially when other sources reference their views. Similar with EFF. Is there something in the article presently you suggest removing? Czarking0 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not proposing to remove anything, although we might actually say where we quote the ACLU in the article that the organization advises its constituents on how to lobby their lawmakers against this technology, and specifically calls out this company in so doing. BD2412 T 21:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Discussion

We should aim to condense the above to the most relevant single paragraph or two of criticism. BD2412 T 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Of the above, I think the broad-based concerns are the most encyclopedic. By contrast, instances of individual misuse seem comparable to other misuses of technology. If a police officer stalked their ex-girlfriend while driving a Honda Civic, we would not add such an incident to the article on that vehicle. BD2412 T 17:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that is a false equivalence. In the hypothetical case you mentioned, the stalking could've just as easily been carried out with a Cybertruck. The brand of vehicle is of little importance to the event that took place, because automobiles are already so widespread in society- why I argued (apparently unsuccessfully) for the removal of that model's name from the title of 2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion. Despite the market achievements of the Honda Civic, it was not so influential in the development of automotive transportation as to enable the abuse of an automobile in the case you posit.

However, if that case involved a Ford Model T in that model's early history, I believe there would be a stronger case to do so. It's because that particular automobile was so influential in the expanded accessibility of automotive travel, and therefore enabled the abuse of automobiles (as was demonstrated in The Great Gatsby, written in the same period of time). Flock is in a similar position to Ford in the 1920s; this specific company disrupted the industry of ALPRs so greatly as to make them more accessible and widespread (as Ford did the automobile), as a wealth of research has concluded, and the company itself has repeatedly touted.

The expansion of ALPRs, led by Flock and their products, directly enabled the abuses of this company's version of said technology in the two Kansas stalking cases, as was mentioned in the section that you removed from this article. I would assert that the primary difference between Flock's ALPRs and those of police-oriented competitors like Motorola is not that they use "child-friendly" imagery or specific marketing themes- but that their devices are cheaper and have a broader range of usability than their competitors' devices. That set them apart from the wider ALPR industry so completely that they were able to dominate the market- as I understand, this singular company supplies the majority of ALPRs to U.S. police departments. They are the primary driver of ALPRs' rapid expansion, and that is one reason that Flock specifically is the subject of so much public controversy. Flock is in a category of their own among ALPR makers, and these cases are specific to the business model that Flock provides, especially since they both involved sharing of data between Flock-operating police agencies, a feature that I believe Flock also introduced to the industry. 42-BRT (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have mention of crimes committed using Model T's even from when the brand was new. We do have an article on Automatic number-plate recognition, which has a much more proportionate "Controversy" section, which would be a more appropriate home to concerns about the technology as more broadly described. As for the subject differing from their competitors in that "their devices are cheaper and have a broader range of usability than their competitors' devices", that sounds right, but I would be interested in seeing a source for that. If we put it in the article just like that, it would sound like marketing for the subject, even if the intent is to highlight criticisms. BD2412 T 01:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The Model T argument was hypothetical, just as yours involving the Civic was. 42-BRT (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that it's hypothetical, I just don't think the outcome would (or should) be any different. BD2412 T 02:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The sharing of data between agencies, a feature which Flock at least claims is unique to their ALPRs, is the key factor in why the reported case in which Flock ALPRs were used to track a woman seeking an abortion (which I added and you quickly removed) is relevant specifically to Flock Safety. 42-BRT (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The cases dealing with Flock's failure to follow applicable permitting laws are also specifically relevant to this company. Similar reports have not been made, to my knowledge, of any competitor of Flock Safety. And I would argue that if a company involved in law enforcement is repeatedly and credibly reported to act in ignorance or violation of the law, that is a sufficiently notable controversy to include in an article discussing that company. 42-BRT (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reduced the abortion incident to content proportionate to its significance to this article subject. There has been a tendency to hang a lot of details irrelevant to the subject on the thinnest hooks of relevance, which is contravened by WP:COATRACK. BD2412 T 03:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree, given that the case at hand pertains to a potential attempt by law enforcement in one state to use these devices to enforce laws in their state outside of their jurisdiction (and in violation of court decisions, per the cited 404 Media article); and that the use of ALPRs to enforce bans on abortion, a highly controversial topic of public interest, has been cited by reputable advocacy organizations as a concern relating to potential invasions of privacy regarding ALPRs (and in some cases, specifically those operated by Flock Safety); which is the title of the subheading under which we've both placed this paragraph. 42-BRT (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also appreciate if you would address the points I have raised regarding the relevance to this article of other controversies that you have removed, under the argument of insufficient relevance to this article, to reach consensus on how those controversies should be acknowledged in this article. 42-BRT (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue, however, is the ALPRs can be used to invade privacy, by public officials. There are broader articles on Wikipedia about invasions of privacy where this concern would be more appropriately expressed. Again, if there is a particular brand of flashlights that is ubiquitous among law enforcement officials, and they use these flashlights to look into people's houses without a warrant, we are not going to add that information to the article on the flashlight maker. We might add information to an article on invasion of privacy on the use of flashlights to make warrantless observations into people's houses. BD2412 T 03:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I see your point. I wouldn't advocate for listing on Ford Explorer every instance of police misconduct involving that vehicle, because there are surely too many to count, and any of them could've just as easily happened if the police involved were driving a Dodge Durango. However, that does not dispute that there are certain characteristics specific to Flock Safety's products that enable the controversies.

However, the Ford Explorer, specifically, was reportedly subject to a design flaw which caused some of those vehicles to expose police officers to toxic carbon monoxide gas while on duty, resulting in at least one lawsuit. That is a controversial and widely reported issue specifically, and only, with the Ford Motor Company and its Explorer model. It is not an issue with police cars generally, so I would advocate for its inclusion in the article Ford Explorer, rather than Police car. It is an example of a supplier of police equipment acting in a manner that is contradictory to the generally understood goal of police to protect the public from harm; similar to the reports of Flock Safety, and to the best of my knowledge only Flock Safety, violating state laws in the installation of their products, contradictory to the idea of enforcement of laws.

Now in the example you've given involving a flashlight, I would argue that it would be appropriate and necessary to mention on a popular police flashlight manufacturer's article (let's say, hypothetically, Streamlight) if that company were the developer and/or exclusive producer of a flashlight which gave police more power to commit those warrantless observations than competing flashlights. Flock Safety did just that: they developed and exclusively produce a product which has unique features that make it objectively more effective in performing many of the functions of ALPRs which are alleged to be violations of privacy. In this case, both specifically Streamlight in my hypothetical example, and specifically Flock Safety in the actual subject of this debate, would be the sole creators of devices which are more powerful, and thus more subject to controversy, than competing devices. I posit that this would make controversies regarding both companies' products' unique features relevant for inclusion in their respective articles. 42-BRT (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

In that case (the Streamlight hypothetical), we would have a line in the article to that general effect. We would not have a paragraph describing how, for example, on January 20, 2024, officer John Johnson of the Shelby County Police Department used a flashlight to peer into the house of Marsha Mayfield on North Pine Street, and was thereby able to observe all of Mayfield's furniture and belongings, including her antique lamps inherited from her grandmother, and that Mayfield then filed a lawsuit asserting invasion of privacy in the local county court, which ruled that this was not a warrantless search, receiving criticism from legal scholars. If there were numerous documented instances, we would still summarize them in a line to that general effect. BD2412 T 17:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Then why didn't you do that, rather than just delete the topics outright? 42-BRT (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

And while I can understand your point that some of those removed sections were more detailed than is necessary, I think your hypothetical example exaggerates the detail into which those sections went, as if to characterize the wording I added in those sections as being extremely and inappropriately detailed. Forgive me if I'm taking your hypothetical too literally, but if you're going to use it to point out what you see as problems with this material, it should be an accurate representation of the material in question.

Some of those sections did include names of people, organizations, and places involved- which, in retrospect, I recognize were unnecessary in many of those cases, but I included in the interest of summarizing the pertinent incidents. Others, like the Espanola case, serve to communicate the consequence that these products can potentially have- illustrating how a false scan has been shown to lead to violent arrests of falsely accused individuals. However, none of them went into such great detail as to describe the names of all parties involved and as detailed a description of the incident as you have here. Notice that the section about stalking read "Lee Nygaard stalked his ex-girlfriend," not "his ex-girlfriend, Jane Doe;" nor in any point in this article was a location mentioned in more exact terms than the name of a city. None included exact dates, either, as that is a practice I generally tend to avoid unless significant enough to warrant mention.

I'm not a perfect writer, and again, I understand your concerns and at least somewhat agree with the need to change them. But I stand by the good faith of my language in those sections and do not appreciate their hyperbolic mischaracterization. 42-BRT (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have not questioned your good faith, but who is "Lee Nygaard"? He is not a notable person, not a Flock Safety person (and even if he was one, we probably wouldn't identify him by name in an article unless he was the CEO or a high-level executive). WP:BLP covers all living persons named anywhere in Wikipedia, whether in an article about them or as a passing mention with respect to another topic. My Streamlight hypothetical was intended to illustrate all the ways that a description can go wrong, but the point remains the same. Where a product is used by a tool with which bad people do bad things (and there is no end to the products for which this can be said), that generally merits a relatively minimal mention. A better example than a flashlight would be a handgun. There are certain companies that market their handguns to police, specifically touting features which make those guns the deadlier choice for police to use. We don't add details about specific police-involved shootings using those guns to their articles, even if the instance is of a police officer shooting their girlfriend, or shooting a woman to prevent her from getting a legal abortion. BD2412 T 02:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Again- those cases would not be discussed under the specific model of weapon unless the unique features of that weapon enabled them, as I have argued is the case with Flock Safety. You've yet to convincingly refute that.

Lee Nygaard was the chief of police in Sedgwick, Kansas, who was convicted of using a Flock system to stalk his girlfriend. His name was mentioned in the text that you removed. 42-BRT (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

When I ask who is "Lee Nygaard"?, I mean, who is he in the sense of Wikipedia BLP policy. Chief of police of a town in Kansas is not an office that qualifies a subject as notable for mention in Wikipedia. He should not be named in this article any more than he should be named in the article on Stalking or the article on Sedgwick, Kansas. With respect to discussing the potential misuses of the unique features of the technology, the article as it now stands is comparatively extensive in capturing the broad critique, including an entire paragraph quoted from the ACLU on the matter. The article currently states, for example, that In 2024, Cyrus Farivar, writing for Forbes, questioned a statistic crediting Flock Safety's technology with an 80% reduction in residential burglaries in San Marino, California in early 2021 compared to the same period in 2020, with Farivar's piece asserting that burglaries actually slightly increased, and that serious crimes remained nearly unchanged. Farivar further questioned Flock Safety's claims in Fort Worth, Dayton, and Lexington. The article currently states Flock's surveillance technology is often criticized for its broadening of public surveillance, and lead to a chilling effect on civil liberties, as described by privacy experts and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union; and that In March 2022, the American Civil Liberties Union released a report criticizing Flock Safety's business model and products; and that In June 2024, a judge in the Norfolk, Virginia, Circuit Court ruled that collecting location data from the city's 172 Flock ALPRs constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case when collected without a warrant. The ruling likened ALPR location databases to tracking devices, whose use by police was previously found unconstitutional without a warrant in United States v. Jones. Later, in October 2024, the Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the Norfolk Police Department on behalf of two local residents, similarly asserting that the department's use of Flock ALPRs constitutes illegal surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That level of detail of criticism is appropriate, and is consistent with the proportion of criticism that is directed towards a great many companies that market products about which critiques are raised. In fact, Wikipedia:Criticism counsels that criticism sections should generally be avoided in articles altogether. This is a rare instance where (and I think we all agree on this) the existence of such a section is warranted. In this case, the section that exists is sufficient to capture criticism, and responses to it, at an appropriately high level. BD2412 T 03:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Why should this be restricted to one or two paragraphs? Each of these are all notable and due stories backed up by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. And more are developing all the time.

WP:CSECTION talks about avoiding sections and articles dedicated solely to criticism. It doesn't say criticism itself should be removed. The answer is clearly to incorporate it into a neutral section incorporating the critical stories with other neutral stories, perhaps the ones in /* Corporate history */. Just call it "history".

Removing the section from the article, even just to move it to the talk page without a discussion on the talk page or a warning on the article page, gives the appearance of WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:REMOVAL, which requires adequate explanation brought about through WP:CONSENSUS. Kire1975 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Criticism is well-presented in the article. We do not, however, introduce details of misuse by individuals who are not employed by the subject company, for exactly the same reason that even though Dodge Charger notes that a version of the vehicle is used by police, it does not list instances where police officers caused damage recklessly driving a Charger, or used their police vehicle to stalk an ex. BD2412 T 00:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

When you say 'we do not', how and where was consensus found on that question? Did it account or the fact that the page for AR-15–style rifle has a section that lists instances of misuse? Kire1975 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I am attempting to incorporate these points into the article without a dedicated section. I do think the noteverything guidelines applies. Summary style indicates we should present each of the major topics of criticism with at most one example. No restriction to just one or two paragraphs. Czarking0 (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Otherwise, we will have a huge list of when it has been effective and a huge list of misuses. I believe similar analogies have been used regarding flashlights. The AR-15 example is not even close as there are tons of sources, studies, etc. about the AR-15 and its relation to deaths. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 How long does the list have to be to include articles about misuse here? Kire1975 (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Are there actually "articles about misuse" at all? With respect to "misuse" of AR-15-style rifles, Wikipedia in fact has separate articles on specific events including the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Pulse nightclub shooting, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, the Crandon shooting, the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, and the Port Arthur massacre. There are no Wikipedia articles on the specified stalking incidents, nor would there be. I would note also that the kinds of specific events listed in the article AR-15–style rifle are not mentioned in the Colt's Manufacturing Company article, illustrating the distinction between the category of product (here, ALPRs), and a specific commercial entity. BD2412 T 23:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

garrett langley

where's his page￶??? ~2026-64288-6 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Any editor is welcome to start a draft on any subject within the scope of the encyclopedia. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be prudent to first determine whether Mr. Langley has ever used any other names in the past through official name change records that may exist; in the case of uncerifiable records, any other reliable sources for discovery such as high school year books, interviews with formative peers who may have knowledge of the existence of any such relevant records or sources that remain undisturbed. Iota488 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, you're free to do that, but usually we start Wikipedia article with a draft based on sources found under the name of the subject, whose notability will most likely be reflected under their current name. It is highly unlikely that this subject became notable under a previous name and then changed it. BD2412 T 17:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I created a redirect for now. Not sure he is notable outside of founding Flock Safety. Maybe I am wrong though as I didn't dig too deep. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Clear BLP violation

For the record, it is a very clear BLP violation to say in Wikipedia's voice that a person "lied" without an adjudication to that effect or substantially higher-level sources clearly stating this. We have neither here. This impermissibly exposes Wikimedia to the kinds of issues that arose with the Caesar DePaço case, and we all know how that ended up. BD2412 T 01:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Where does it say he lied? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I see it now. This is bad. Clear BLP violation. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect, the statement is true and it is supported by multiple reliable sources. That is all that is required by BLP. The Caesar DePaço case did not result in any change to WP policy and should not be cited like it is some type of consensus. Czarking0 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If you still think it is a BLP issue you should seek revdel.Czarking0 (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing whether a city councilman's claim that he was lied to is true or not. Is there a recording of that meeting? BD2412 T 04:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be a primary source then you would object to that. This is supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. Czarking0 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No, the Colorado source says "Sandoval said Langley had lied to her directly", emphasis added, which is very different from reporting that this interaction was confirmed. They are reporting that a claim was made by the council member. Similarly, the Colorado source says that Langley said that the company had no federal contracts (a specific kind of legal document generated pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation), but that it turned out that the company had "given Border Patrol access to tracking data", which obviously does not inherently require a federal contract (we're sharing information in this discussion, but there is no contract between us). Moreover, to claim someone "lied" requires knowing what's in their head, and that they were not merely mistaken or forgetful or assuming a technical meaning in the moment which would make their statement true. BD2412 T 17:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If we had the full text of the apology is there anything that could be in that that you think would warrant stating that the person in question lied? Czarking0 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean if we had the full text of the primary source document? BD2412 T 01:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes Czarking0 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

People need to understand the stakes here. Privacy and freedom are under threat. Things like "BLP" do not apply in an emergency. FlockWatcher (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This is just not true you don't get to decide what the laws are. WP BLP policy is supported by community consensus and helps protect the community from US law. I do not agree with some others interpretation of the policy here but calling for it to be disregarded is not reasonable. Czarking0 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That being said I think some level of this should be included and I encourage collaboration to determine what that is Czarking0 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@FlockWatch: I looked up your Tallahassee.com article on the Internet Archive. While the state did pass legislation against evading ALPRs generally, that article says nothing about the subject of this article at all. The words "Flock Safety" do not appear in the Tallahassee.com article. BD2412 T 17:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Its obvious they mean Flock. The whole state is sick with it. Complacency is collusion. FlockWatch (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If you can provide a source specifying that this state passed its anti-evasion legislation for the purposes of allowing the article subject's specific technology to function, you are welcome to provide that source. Absent that, such an assertion belongs in a more general article on ALPR concerns. BD2412 T 17:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Curious as to your thoughts on this assertion being made in Wikipedia's voice. BD2412 T 13:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@BD2412:, I had removed this from my watchlist due to the POV pushing and editors refusing to adhere to WP:ONUS. I see that it has gotten way worse since then. I will have a look later on but the actual edit you are referring to is from a local source with someone making a claim. Even if it could be written in Wikivoice, it is not WP:DUE. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

NPR is a local source? Czarking0 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

This is canvassing please stop Czarking0 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That's an odd response. Canvassing for what vote? BD2412 T 20:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

As I have been asked to strike this comment, I will further explain it. Canvassing is typically invoked as a concern where a discussion is conducted for the purpose of developing a consensus on a specific point (such as a move request, deletion discussion, vote on the merits of a policy change, or the like), and where an editor previously uninvolved in the discussion is solicited to participate in the discussion with language pressing for a preferred outcome. In this case, User:CNMall41 has previously been involved not just on this page but in this specific session, and is well-respected on this project for his long expertise in policies including those dealing with BLP concerns. The question was asked without pushing for a particular opinion on the matter (e.g., "I think this is a bad/good edit, do you agree?"); it does not seem possible to "canvas" an editor to participate in a discussion in which they have already been participating for several weeks, regarding an edit for which no effort to seek consensus has been made. BD2412 T 02:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Privacy and misuse continued

@CNMall41

We have not finished the previous edit. Apologies for the delay.

Some cities have stopped working with Flock over the use of its data in immigration enforcement and for community privacy concerns, while others did so due to the company acting without the consent of the city.

This was the last edit proposed. Let us continue this from our previous thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flock_Safety#RE:_incidents_related_to_#Privacy_concerns,_potential_misuse_and_legal_issues

Fishestablishment (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

what was your disagreement with this edit again? Fishestablishment (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Fishestablishment:, the ping was not correct but I put this back on my watchlist thankfully. Give me a day or so as there are a lot of issues with content that was restored despite consensus. I want to get my head around everything and be able to respond to everything at once, including your request above. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I tried to follow the thread as accurately as I could and believe the proposal was to add your sentence along with the information about Forbes. I had no problem with your summary but objected to the Forbes which I see was re-added by another user without consensus. What I would be inclined to support is swapping your wording for the Forbes wording which needs removed per ONUS anyway. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity of this discussion thread, I will add that summary of that particular edit then so we can close this one and move onto that Forbes one. I will not include the Forbes part. We will have to open that Forbes part in a new discussion just so it is organized. If I have misunderstood, feel free to continue this discussion, but it seems we can close this one now since there is no objection with that summary. Apologies again for the long delay! Fishestablishment (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I am all caught up. Yes, it seems I misunderstood you last time, but I agree on the replacement of the Forbes part. I had to do a few edits because I think I mixed up which subsection I was in, but overall, I think we are done with this.

Fishestablishment (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0

So the reason why I removed the edit earlier (the one you restored again) was because the wording was not specific and did not capture the issues of the company. The discussion thread is a little long but this is why this was removed:

As of 2025, Flock is used by over 6,000 municipalities in the United States. Some cities have stopped working with Flock for a variety of reasons. The company had raised a total $950 million in venture funding, with a $7.5 billion valuation. Some state transportation and public safety agencies have accused Flock of installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission. In 2024, Forbes reported that Flock had installed hundreds of devices on public roads in multiple states without securing necessary permits. Other communities have expressed privacy concerns.

The parts I crossed out are the ones I am replacing because this is vague language. What happened as was discussed was that the company acted in ways without the consent of the city, which is more accurate than saying "stopped working with Flock for a variety of reasons:" For the part with the "Some state transportation and public safety...." the politico article summed it up well.

Also, as of that year, some cities have stopped working with Flock over the use of its data in immigration enforcement and for community privacy concerns, while others did so due to the company acting without the consent of the city.¹

1. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/30/license-plate-trackers-pushback-00670550

Let me know your thoughts since I think @CNMall41 was in disagreement with the original and supported for replacement of the Forbes part with this summary instead. Fishestablishment (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

So this is what I think would be the final edit as you can see on the page now:

As of 2025, Flock is used by over 6,000 municipalities in the United States. The company had raised a total $950 million in venture funding, with a $7.5 billion valuation. Also, in that same year, some cities have stopped working with Flock over the use of its data in immigration enforcement and for community privacy concerns, while others did so due to the company acting without the consent of the city.

The previous one was this:

As of 2025, Flock is used by over 6,000 municipalities in the United States. Some cities have stopped working with Flock for a variety of reasons. The company had raised a total $950 million in venture funding, with a $7.5 billion valuation. Some state transportation and public safety agencies have accused Flock of installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission. In 2024, Forbes reported that Flock had installed hundreds of devices on public roads in multiple states without securing necessary permits. Other communities have expressed privacy concerns.

I believe CNMall was in disagreement with the "6,000 municipalities" detail, but I think it's fine to keep.

Fishestablishment (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 Fishestablishment (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The Forbes quote has been in disagreement and continues to get restored. I am removing again per ONUS and we can discuss but my previous contention remains. If consensus is established to include it then feel free to add it back. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

is there a separate discussion about this Forbes thing that I am missing out on? It's been awhile, though I think I am caught up. I am fine with replacing it with the current edit that we discussed, though I want to hear @Czarking0's thoughts too.

Fishestablishment (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It is in the section "Controversy section moved to talk page for discussion" above. February and March I believe. Have not had the appetite to come back and look over everything due to the lack of civility in some of the threads. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, i see that you removed it. Thank you. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the gist of it and see where the disagreement between everyone is. I think @Czarking0 might be out of the loop and apologies on my end for the delay.

Fishestablishment (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me Czarking0 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox updates

Hi Editors! I'm wondering if someone would be willing to update the infobox on my behalf? Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be making any changes to the article directly, but I'd like to help improve it and bring it up to date.

• trade_name: Flock Safety
• area_served: United States
• revenue: $300 million (2025)

References

Thank you! M at Flock (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Done Czarking0 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Updating photo

Hi Editors, I just donated a new photo to Wikimedia commons, and I was wondering if an editor would be willing to swap out the old photo in the products section with this updated one. Thank you! M at Flock (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Done DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 01:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@DiscoursesonLivvy: Thank you for updating the image. I noticed that in Czarking0's edit rolling back some changes that the new image was removed. Can either of you reconsider adding the new image back to the article? M at Flock (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@DiscoursesonLivvy and Czarking0: Pinging again in case you hadn't seen my last message. It appears the new image (File:Flock Safety Camera and Solar Panel.jpg) was inadvertently removed. Would you reconsider adding it back? Thank you. M at Flock (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Speculation in introduction

Hi Editors! Flock Safety employee here to bring up a potential issue in the introduction. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't make the edit myself.

Currently, the introduction reads: "Flock Safety's network of cameras, utilizing image recognition and machine learning, can share data with police departments and can be integrated into predictive policing platforms like Palantir." (Source: Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World, pp. 45–46)

Specifically, the source says: "Flock Safety's system is not simply a surveillance camera, it is a network of cameras combined with software that uses image recognition and machine learning to identify certain kinds of behaviour. The promotional material doesn't describe machine learning beyond what is used for image recognition, but the data produced by the system will be connected with other datasets and can be shared with other police departments. Some of these departments will use systems such as the data analytics platform Palantir to combine multiple data sources and use machine learning algorithms for predictive policing."

Its placement in the introduction is quite prominent for a source that, as written, is speculative. In addition to the speculation, the issue is also not supported in the body of the article. I suggest this sentence be rewritten to be a more general statement about integration with police departments. For example: "Flock Safety's network of cameras, utilizing image recognition and machine learning, can be integrated with law-enforcement analytic platforms."

Thank you. M at Flock (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a bit more on how it's "speculative" and why it should be changed for that reason? Kire1975 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kire1975: Thanks for the reply. It's speculative because as written, it's more theoretical than demonstrating in a measurable way how departments use various data sets. It says that Flock's data will be connected to other data sets and that some departments will use systems such as Palantir. However, there are no independent third-party reliable sources that say how this is done. A Google search of something like "flock safety integrates with palantir?" displays no third-party references to an integration.

Law enforcement agencies can use many tools for various things. Flock data is used by police departments, some of which use Palantir for predictive policing, but there is no direct integration between Flock and Palantir. The Wikipedia text collapses this into a claim about Flock platform integration that sourcing does not support.

If the lead is going to have a general statement about integrating various platforms, I suggest it exclude speculation about which platforms. I appreciate your consideration. M at Flock (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, integrate and combine are synonyms. Kire1975 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Done Czarking0 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0: Thank you for moving this content. I do wonder what you think of potentially removing the reference to Palantir specifically? As it appears in this article, it looks as though Palantir integration is an official feature. It is not. For discussion purposes, Flock's website also makes this point: "No, Flock does not work with Palantir. Palantir does not have access to any Flock customer data." Given the lack of sourcing, I suggest a more general statement such as the one I outlined above. But of course, I defer to editor judgment here. M at Flock (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The book source makes a direct reference for Palantir. I see that as due for inclusion right now. However, I added an attribution to try to indicate that this potential for integration is not directly support by Flock. Czarking0 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand, thank you for making that change! M at Flock (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to update company infobox logo to current version

Hello editors, I have a conflict of interest as I work with Flock Safety. I would like to request updating the infobox logo to the current official version.

The current logo on the article [File:Flock_Safety_logo_(2025).svg] is outdated. The updated official version of the logo has been uploaded under the name [File:Flock_Logo_Green.svg].

I believe this meets Wikipedia’s fair use criteria because it is a low-resolution logo used solely for identification. Can an editor review this and add it if appropriate? Thank you! M at Flock (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Done Czarking0 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Cops Keep Getting Arrested for Using Flock to Stalk People
• City Learns Flock Accessed Cameras in Children's Gymnastics Room as a Sales Pitch Demo, Renews Contract Anyway

Both are by 404 Media. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Small clarification

Hello editors, on behalf of Flock Safety, I am requesting editors update Matt Feury's role. The Corporate history section includes: "It was co-founded by three Georgia Tech alumni: Garrett Langley (CEO), Paige Todd (CHRO), and Matt Feury (CTO)" Feury is no longer CTO. There are no sources about Feury's departure, but this source verifies that someone else held that role by 2025.

Can an editor update the mention of Feury to say "then-CTO" or "former CTO"? Thank you. M at Flock (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I removed the titles from all the co-founders because they were not verified in the current sourcing. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 11:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for those changes. M at Flock (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Information on retention and transparency portals

Hello editors. I have a conflict of interest as I work with Flock Safety. This article contains no specifics about Flock Safety's data retention. Since data retention is an important attribute of Flock Safety's products and its transparency portals offer limited statistics into their use, I suggest adding content to the Automatic license plate readers subsection.

Flock data is retained by the company for 30 days by default before it is deleted. Jurisdictions have the ability to adjust this retention period; for example, the Flagstaff Police Department reduced its retention to 14 days in 2025 amid community concerns about data sharing. Agencies using Flock Safety cameras are able to determine access controls and data-sharing within the platform. Flock Safety maintains what it calls "transparency portals", which Berkeleyside said publishes "some limited statistics of the numbers of searches made on and vehicles detected by local ALPR networks".

References

If editors want more information on how rentention/deletion work, this public document offers more insight.

Can an editor review this and add it if appropriate? Thank you! M at Flock (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

One of the reasons I have been hesitant to address this myself is I think there is ambiguity around what these retention policies actually mean. I understand that Flock says the data is not retained beyond some period. Certainly this means that a customer who has set their retention to 14 days cannot access that data on day 15. However, I have not seen any third party info about what is actually happening to the data. Cybersecurity researchers with physical device access demonstrated methods to access all the data the camera has ever seen all the way back to test images from inside the factory that produced the cameras. To me this indicates that is its not accurate to say that the data is not retained.Czarking0 (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

While information may be deleted in a specific amount of time, the amount of information shared with other agencies seems to suggest that it could be possible for an agency to hold onto Flock data via some kind of saving of the data or download for longer then allowed (and, on a side note, only primary Flock sources say the data goes away after that time period, whereas third party sources seem to suggest otherwise or nothing at all). Also, this is sometimes considered contentious and as a COI editor, I would say this is not the best part of this article for you to edit. Full disclosure, I dislike Flock cameras and so I may be biased, but in general I feel information that is mildly contentious should not be added to an article by a COI editor. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)