Flock's CEO Says It Has Never Dropped A Police Customer For Misusing Its Cameras - But It Totally Would

Flock is the biggest of a handful of automated license plate reader camera companies. It's been under a lot of pressure lately for various reasons, but probably most of all because of how some of its users have leveraged the tech unlawfully or inappropriately. We've told you about how private businesses that use Flock and other ALPR readers basically get to police themselves.

Actual law enforcement agencies often (but not always) have to have good reason to use the data captured by Flock. That's why there have been several cases nationwide of officers getting fired and arrested for misusing it to stalk exes, love interests, or rival business owners. Now, Flock is saying that it would absolutely terminate a police department for misuse of the tech. It just hasn't yet.

Flock CEO Garrett Langley told TechCrunch that the company has never terminated a customer over misuse of its products. On its website, the company acknowledges that officers can abuse its systems and says they should face consequences.

"If a customer knowingly broke the law, we would fire them immediately. That's very easy," Langley said. "Most of the debate is nuanced into 'what if two officers out of fifty were caught?' Today, we haven't fired any customers, but it's not off the table in the case of some pretty drastic law-abiding issue," continued Langley. In other words, Flock says misconduct by a few people shouldn't overshadow legitimate police work.

It points to investigations involving missing people, violent crimes, and theft as reasons its systems matter. Frankly, there's no doubt that a camera network that helps recover stolen cars can still need meaningful restrictions. Both can exist simultaneously. The tougher question is how to act when the organization entrusted with those restrictions fails to enforce them.

The issue with Langley's argument is what counts as widespread abuse. Does it require most of a department to participate? Or can misconduct by one or two officers expose a much broader failure of oversight? Consider Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, as one example.

Authorities said an employee searched his former fiancée's license plate several thousand times over several years. The sheriff's office investigated but it wasn't because they caught the issue. It was only after receiving questions from the media that they ultimately fired him.

In Stow, Massachusetts, police said a victim's complaint alerted them to another officer's alleged misuse. Notice the pattern? The department isn't catching the issue quickly; people outside it are doing the legwork well after the crime. The reality is that verifiable accounts show departments across the nation aren't following laws governing ALPRs and data. If Flock hasn't fired them, what is it talking about?

There's a Flock Safety network-sized difference between a victim flagging misuse because of their personal experience long after the fact and a police department promptly supervising ALPR data usage. Two out of 50 sounds reassuring until those two spend years abusing access that the other forty-eight are supposedly helping oversee. So sure, Flock will for sure fire departments that misuse the technology. It just hasn't seen a good reason to so far, it appears.