Talk:Flock Safety

Requested changes to add company's full product suite

• Add section below intro:

Products

In addition to their flagship LPR product, Flock has released additional devices and software in the public safety realm. These include:

Flock Safety Falcon is an automated license plate recognition (ALPR) camera that collects license plates as well as other vehicle details such as color, make, and specific decals. The camera is mounted on a pole and can be solar-powered or AC-powered.

Flock Safety Sparrow is an automated license plate recognition (ALPR) camera specifically offered to neighborhoods and HOAs. The camera collects license plates and other vehicle details such as color, make, and specific decals. It is mounted on a pole and can be solar-powered or AC-powered.

Flock Safety Raven is an audio detection device that detects gunshots and provides alerts in the event of gunfire. When a gunshot occurs, Flock Safety Raven® notifies the local police department in under one minute about the firearm discharge. These notifications include an audio recording, location coordinates within 90 feet of the alert, and the ability to search nearby License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras for potential suspect vehicles.

Flock Safety Condor consists of PTZ and fixed video cameras that provide live and recorded video for real-time, on-scene footage. Flock Safety Condor is “Managed Video as a Service” including hardware, cellular, and maintenance.

FlockOS® is a public safety platform that centralizes evidence and alerts from devices in a jurisdiction This software brings all intelligence streams onto the FlockOS® ESRI-based map.

FlockOS® 911, powered by Prepared, is a software solution that delivers live 911 calls to patrol officers while they are en route to the scene of a crime. Officers are able to listen to active 911 calls via their in-vehicle devices with access to live transcripts. :

• It is important for a business page to reflect all of the products that the company currently sells.:

209.163.98.108 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

References

•  Not done: I'm afraid It is important for a business page to reflect all of the products that the company currently sells is not actually true. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to summarize what independent, reliable sources have said about the subject. Please read WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTPRICE for more information. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested changes to add company's founding story and current company culture

• Founder Story

Garrett Langley is a technology entrepreneur who has spent the last decade of his career leading Flock Safety.

Flock Safety was founded following Garrett's own experience with crime in his neighborhood. Upon approaching law enforcement to provide evidence and secure justice, he learned how many existing neighborhood security solutions were not effective in providing actionable evidence that could be used to solve crime.

As an electrical engineer and serial technology entrepreneur, Garrett and co-founders Matt Feury and Paige Todd founded Flock Safety in 2017.

Flock Safety’s mission follows from Garrett’s experience growing successful companies that reimagined traditional sectors: Clutch, a monthly car subscription service that allowed consumers to swap their vehicle for any occasion, and Experience, a mobile-first fan experience platform that allowed users to upgrade live events. Overseeing the engineering, design, product, data science, and customer support groups at Experience, Garrett led the sale of the company to Cox Enterprises for $200 million in 2014.

Since founding Flock, Langley has received several notable recognitions, including being an EY Entrepreneur Of The Year® 2021 Southeast Finalist and an Atlanta Business Chronicle 2021 40 Under 40 honoree.

Company Culture

Flock Safety employs 850+ people across 44 states. The company is headquartered in Atlanta, GA, but offers a remote-first work experience. Its core company values include embracing change to grow, optimism with a plan, doing the work, and protecting the whole community.

Notable recognitions include being named on Forbes’ 2024 list of America’s Best Startup Employers and being named one of Built In’s Best Places to Work 2024.

:

• This provides context on the founding story of the company and where it is now as a business.:

209.163.98.108 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: A majority of the requested changes are currently written in a promotional tone. Please review WP:Neutral point of view and ensure you follow this before submitting any edit requests. CloakedFerret (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Watch for vandalism/CoI edits

I am troubled by the recent edits to this page made by user CaptnFalcon, whose name seems to be a reference to Flock's ALPR, and whose only edits to date have been made on this page. These edits seemed to give the article a bias favoring the company, and for all of those reasons, I believe Ocaasi was correct in surmising that this user has a conflict of interest with the subject.

For this reason, I would encourage moderators to monitor this page for suspicious edits. 42-BRT (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Article Tone

This article reads as if it was written by a competitor. Its language is biased and probably aims to further some agenda. It includes only negative examples, despite Flock's wide support and adoption by police departments across the country (the article provides few examples of this). This hit piece needs to be fixed. 128.135.204.121 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there any specific language that you would suggest is biased? Do you have reliable sources providing positive counterexamples? BD2412 T 02:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have not forgotten about this. I can see that there are some questionable sources, and quite a bit of missing information and context. I will revisit within the next few weeks. BD2412 T 02:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

== 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.

Stalking by police officers

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

In October 2022, a police detective in Kechi, Kansas was found to have used Flock's system to follow his estranged wife over the course of a month. His department has access to Flock ALPR data from other cities' ALPR networks, including the Wichita Police Department, which allowed him to track his wife's whereabouts across multiple communities. Following an audit of officers' database access, the detective was arrested, and his state law enforcement certification was later revoked.

In another case, the chief of police in Sedgwick, Kansas, Lee Nygaard, used Flock's systems to track his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, searching for their vehicles on the Flock database more than 200 times from June to October 2023. He searched for their vehicles under the guise of investigating drug abuses, child abduction, and suspicious activity, and used a police vehicle to follow and harass his victims. Nygaard resigned amidst the controversy, lost his law enforcement certification, and was sentenced to 18 months' probation. Flock refused media requests for an interview following the incident, and declined to comment on previous reports of abuses of their database.

Incorrect scans

In Española, New Mexico, two motorists were stopped and detained by police after Flock ALPRs mistook their vehicles for those associated with crimes. In one case, a 21-year-old woman was stopped after a Flock ALPR misread her vehicle's license plate as one reported stolen, and she and her 12-year-old sister were arrested at gunpoint before officers discovered the error. In the other, a 17-year-old high school student was stopped, searched, and arrested at gunpoint by a state trooper after his vehicle was photographed by a Flock ALPR and mistaken for a similar vehicle spotted near a crime scene. Both motorists sued the city of Española for damages, alleging negligence and violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment.

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

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)

Marketing techniques

I take issue with a lot of the recent edits by user BD2412 T to this article, which I believe equate to whitewashing a heavily controversial company involved in a heavily controversial business. I'll start at the top (literally) and work my way down.

I maintain that the recently added (and restored) mention of how Flock's branding is "child-friendly" and uses motifs of watchfulness and community safety is heavily biased in the company's favor, and I question why it is necessary to include at all. Mentioning so prominently why this company contrasts from competitors - and especially, as this user's writing has done, definitely implying that it is better than said competitors' practices, reads like promotion of the company. In any case, this factoid about Flock's marketing is not nearly noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in a summarizing lead as this user has done. At best, it should be included further down the article in a heading about the company's business model. 42-BRT (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how you are getting that out of an accurate and sourced description of a company's marketing. The sentence as it appears in the article now says, "The company's branding contrasts with competitors by using bright colors, child-friendly imagery, and a marketing focus on community security, while naming its products after birds, assertedly to reinforce the theme of watchfulness". This is summarized from a book by Jill Walker Rettberg, a university professor of digital culture, and therefore an expert in the field, in Rettberg, Jill Walker (September 11, 2023). Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World. John Wiley & Sons. p. 45-46 – via Google Books.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link), where she states:

Flock's marketing strategy is to domesticate surveillance technology. While most of their competitors target law enforcement, Flock caters to a mixed market of families and police departments and emphasizes how ALPRs protect families and children. Comparing the websites and promotional material of these companies shows this difference starkly. Companies aimed more at government and law enforcement, such as Vigilant or Rektor, use dark blues and corporate, serious style, whereas Flock uses brightly colored photos of children, big headings and logos in green and purple...

Stating the fact that Flock's marketing has the attributes that it has is merely reporting a fact as set forth in the source. Readers are intelligent enough to understand that an accurate description of a company's marketing strategy is not an endorsement of the company. This frankly no different from our article on McDonald's noting that the company "sought to include more healthy choices in its menu, announcing in May 2008 that, in the United States and Canada, it has switched to using cooking oil that contains no trans fats for its french fries, and canola-based oil with corn and soy oils, for its baked items", which obviously is not an endorsement of McDonald's as health food. BD2412 T 01:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I see your point about why it's important to mention the difference in Flock's marketing, but that still does not justify the line's inclusion in the introduction to the article. Like I said, those specific details of their marketing strategy would be better discussed further down the article in a more in-depth discussion of their business model than would be appropriate in an article lead. 42-BRT (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The McDonald's line you mention is included in that article in the manner I described. 42-BRT (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not greatly averse to moving that line lower in the article. I do think that it is a key aspect of how the company positions itself. There are a lot of security camera products in the market, and this company seeks to distinguish itself from competitors by focusing on selling to communities more than to law enforcement, and using imagery reflecting this strategy. I could see moving the existing line to the body and leaving something shorter in the lede to the effect that "The company's marketing contrasts with competitors through color and naming schemes that reflect its marketing focus". BD2412 T 01:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)