5 ms·

>The backlash against Flock has intensified as a growing number of police officers have been accused of or charged with abusing the technology, often to stalk r

>The backlash against Flock has intensified as a growing number of police officers have been accused of or charged with abusing the technology, often to stalk romantic interests. As of Aug. 12, there had been more than 100 cases of abuse by law enforcement, according to the Institute for Justice. In response, Flock announced new safeguards designed to prevent misuse by police. Critics, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue that the reforms are largely “cosmetic,” and that warrants should be required for searching license plate reader data. I'll go further: the gathering of such information should only be allowable by a sworn law enforcement officer acting under a warrant or some other sort of judicial permission during an active investigation. Flock and Axon are private companies. What's to stop them from selling this license plate data to the police or to other parties to pad their quarterly numbers? Actually, I'd be surprised if they're not already doing this. A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts.

skinfaxi 2mo ago
> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts. The contract awards are public no? Axon et al probably make the majority of their money on service charges for storing, accessing the data rather than on the cameras themselves.
- lenerdenator 2mo ago
  I would guess so, though that doesn't exactly get rid of the costs of the hardware. I'd be interested to see what the op ex is for a company running this sort of business. You're storing lots of video, which isn't exactly cheap, and need to do so in a way that allows for cataloging, backup, and durable references to the data. On top of that, these cameras are transmitting data in a way that doesn't have a huge antenna sticking off of them, so there's almost certainly some sort of data plan to work with Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile in play, transmitting some sort of video data over the network, either as a file transfer or streaming depending on the use case. That's another expense. For every big city that's signing one of these contracts, there are probably a dozen small towns or villages also signing one with significantly more pressure on the government to keep budgets small. I suppose the big cities could be subsidizing the small towns.
  - president_zippy 2mo ago
    You guys could do a little bit of research before chiming in. It's not that hard to find this information, and there are dozens of documentary videos on YouTube about Flock cameras. To answer the unasked question here, their business model is indeed making money off of collecting and storing the data, then granting law enforcement access to it. The gross P&L from the cameras themselves is an afterthought.
    - lenerdenator 2mo ago
      > You guys could do a little bit of research before chiming in. It's not that hard to find this information, and there are dozens of documentary videos on YouTube about Flock cameras. Anyone can put up anything on YouTube. Have a good example?
someothherguyy 2mo ago
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/privacy/2026/02/flock-cameras-shared-license-plate-data-without-permission https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/privacy/2026/02/flock-came...
- infecto 2mo ago
  No, they don’t as far as I have seen sell data for commercial purposes.
  - brk 2mo ago
    Yet? You have to admit, the precedent for them being a company that understands the sensitivity of this data has not been set.
    - infecto 2mo ago
      Get rid of the what if hyperbole and focus on the core reason why it’s bad. These contracts do not allow commercial use. Could they in the future but so what, focus on the here and now. We should continue to focus on what is true today. Flock has never enforced strict security around their platform and it’s proven consistently that people in power abuse it. The what if conspiracy serves no purpose in dethroning Flock.
      - rconti 2mo ago
        I don't really think "enshittification" is a conspiracy theory. I think everyone can relate to engaging in a relationship with a company, thinking they had a reasonable understanding of how the relationship worked, and then having the terms changed out from under them. Maybe Flock gets bought by another company and "oops, the terms changed". Maybe all contract renewals will have commercial use in the language. Once the cameras are there, the heavy lifting (from Flock's side) has been done.
        infecto 2mo ago
        Sure but the premise was a conspiracy that they are padding financial numbers by selling the data commercially. They don’t so why perpetuate the conspiracy? Focus on the real problem with the business.
mc32 2mo ago
Anyone accessing data from this system should have an active case they are assigned to, anything else should be subject to disciplinary action just as with HIPAA. It should have tamper evident audit trails. It should not be on a whim. If emergency access is needed they have to retroactively get reviewed and approved and if it was not in line with any active investigation or assist in an active investigation again it should come under serious scrutiny with actionable consequences.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- ptaffs 2mo ago
  Regulation of private companies and enforcement of same aren't really the way things work in America. And even the most highly regulated companies struggle with reality practicalities of tamper evident audit trails, for example designating a subset of systems in-scope of SOX or PCI controls where such trails are required.
  - mc32 2mo ago
    You could require third party audits on an annual basis and discrepancies and violations addressed and or investigated. Failures need consequences like increased insurance rates, dismissals, etc. if it continues then the Feds get to take over the department/precinct, whatever.
infecto 2mo ago
Flock sucks but I think these kind of conspiracies hurt the argument. You can go look at a number of these contracts since they are part of your local city/municipality. A typical flock agreement is pretty firm that the data is the customers. Some of it might be used for training. There is opt-in to share with other law enforcement but I have not yet seen anything around commercial use. I don’t think much padding is necessary. It’s a metal pole with a cheap camera and SIM card. They charge $3-5k a year per camera. The only upfront cost is a local contractor to install the camera, they typically have one that covers a very large region. Huge margins with that alone.
- FireBeyond 2mo ago
  > A typical flock agreement is pretty firm that the data is the customers. Some of it might be used for training. There is opt-in to share with other law enforcement but I have not yet seen anything around commercial use. And yet even when opting out, and/or specifically disallowed by the contract, Flock will happily share with other agencies, particularly Federal. It has happened multiple times in my state alone (Washington): https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/flock-safety-cancel-wave-30-cities-alpr-surveillance-contracts-2026/ https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/flock-safety-cancel-wav...
  - infecto 2mo ago
    Agree and that is a massive fact issue that we should be focusing on. I think folks are conflating me wanting to focus on the facts as that should be the evidence we use and not what if scenarios.
- thaumaturgy 2mo ago
  This issue is a lot more nuanced than Flock's standard contract with municipalities. You're right that Flock explicitly -- and repeatedly -- states that agencies "own" the data. They make those statements not just in their contract but also in their marketing materials, in interviews with city councilors, and to the press. But that could also be seen as a fig leaf for their actual control over the data, and as a disclaimer of liability. They've wanted to have it both ways: they get to own every endpoint that the data flows through, and at no time does the supposed customer have real control over the collected data, and yet they aren't responsible for the content or consequences of collecting, transporting, and storing that data. Customers do not even control whether the devices are powered on or off. Two cities here had to ask Flock to disable the devices while the cities reconsidered their contract, and in both cases some devices got reactivated without the cities' permission. We aren't the only ones. Flock has also been incredibly dishonest about their object detection. They repeatedly made statements that it was "just the rear corner of vehicles" or "just a license plate", but when we (legally) acquired some of their devices for analysis, we found hardcoded tags for multiple other objects, including people and bicycles. Flock's "FreeForm" product marketing further supports that they are collecting images of people, and internal training materials from our local police department also supports the belief that Flock is uploading far more than just images of vehicles and license plates. So, my question would be: if you don't control the devices, and you don't own the network, and you don't know what's in the data, then... do you actually own that data? In what substantive way is this situation different from DRM-encumbered media with a revocable license? I mean, sure, you paid for that game or that movie, but if someone else can decide at any time to change your access to it, do you own it? You also made a few other comments rebutting arguments about commercial use of the data. Again, you're technically correct: to date, there are no known cases of Flock directly selling access to ALPR data to a third party in direct exchange for money. But, Flock is a subscription service and cities don't own any of the hardware or the software involved. Flock is directly collecting ALPR data in each city and then selling it back to the city. Even setting that aside, their valuation in 2025 strongly suggested a connection between the data they were collecting and the amount of capital investors were willing to provide. $7.5 billion valuation against $300 million ARR, combined with ALPRs mostly cobbled together from open source or off-the-shelf software and cheap hardware and installed by a nationwide fleet of contractors: it's really hard to look at all the numbers and not conclude that the most valuable asset Flock had was the data they were collecting. If Flock did get $275 million of additional funding largely on the value of the data they had access to, is that really substantially different from commercial sale of the data?
consensus1 2mo ago
It's too late for that. This would have maybe worked 30 years ago, but since the Patriot Act and FISA we have literal secret courts approving >99% of the government's requests for surveillance. The existence of the data is now enough to guarantee its misuse.
jubilanti 2mo ago
> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts. The Los Angeles Police Department annual budget is over $2 billion. A couple million a year to flock is a drop in the bucket.
kotaKat 2mo ago
> What's to stop them from selling this license plate data to the police or to other parties to pad their quarterly numbers? Motorola does! https://drndata.com/ https://drndata.com/ If you're a private repo-man you too can also buy Vigilant Solutions (now Motorola) ALPR cameras to track down deadbeats and take their cars. Note the list of "Trusted by Fortune 500 data-driven companies" there. All of them are sub-prime lenders and cater to the 24.99% APR marketplace. Even funnier they now sell the bodycams over through DRN too to the repo guys. https://drndata.com/body-worn-camera/ https://drndata.com/body-worn-camera/

skinfaxi 2mo ago

> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts. The contract awards are public no? Axon et al probably make the majority of their money on service charges for storing, accessing the data rather than on the cameras themselves.

lenerdenator 2mo ago
I would guess so, though that doesn't exactly get rid of the costs of the hardware. I'd be interested to see what the op ex is for a company running this sort of business. You're storing lots of video, which isn't exactly cheap, and need to do so in a way that allows for cataloging, backup, and durable references to the data. On top of that, these cameras are transmitting data in a way that doesn't have a huge antenna sticking off of them, so there's almost certainly some sort of data plan to work with Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile in play, transmitting some sort of video data over the network, either as a file transfer or streaming depending on the use case. That's another expense. For every big city that's signing one of these contracts, there are probably a dozen small towns or villages also signing one with significantly more pressure on the government to keep budgets small. I suppose the big cities could be subsidizing the small towns.
- president_zippy 2mo ago
  You guys could do a little bit of research before chiming in. It's not that hard to find this information, and there are dozens of documentary videos on YouTube about Flock cameras. To answer the unasked question here, their business model is indeed making money off of collecting and storing the data, then granting law enforcement access to it. The gross P&L from the cameras themselves is an afterthought.
  - lenerdenator 2mo ago
    > You guys could do a little bit of research before chiming in. It's not that hard to find this information, and there are dozens of documentary videos on YouTube about Flock cameras. Anyone can put up anything on YouTube. Have a good example?

someothherguyy 2mo ago

https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/privacy/2026/02/flock-cameras-shared-license-plate-data-without-permission https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/privacy/2026/02/flock-came...

infecto 2mo ago
No, they don’t as far as I have seen sell data for commercial purposes.
- brk 2mo ago
  Yet? You have to admit, the precedent for them being a company that understands the sensitivity of this data has not been set.
  - infecto 2mo ago
    Get rid of the what if hyperbole and focus on the core reason why it’s bad. These contracts do not allow commercial use. Could they in the future but so what, focus on the here and now. We should continue to focus on what is true today. Flock has never enforced strict security around their platform and it’s proven consistently that people in power abuse it. The what if conspiracy serves no purpose in dethroning Flock.
    - rconti 2mo ago
      I don't really think "enshittification" is a conspiracy theory. I think everyone can relate to engaging in a relationship with a company, thinking they had a reasonable understanding of how the relationship worked, and then having the terms changed out from under them. Maybe Flock gets bought by another company and "oops, the terms changed". Maybe all contract renewals will have commercial use in the language. Once the cameras are there, the heavy lifting (from Flock's side) has been done.
      - infecto 2mo ago
        Sure but the premise was a conspiracy that they are padding financial numbers by selling the data commercially. They don’t so why perpetuate the conspiracy? Focus on the real problem with the business.

mc32 2mo ago

Anyone accessing data from this system should have an active case they are assigned to, anything else should be subject to disciplinary action just as with HIPAA. It should have tamper evident audit trails. It should not be on a whim. If emergency access is needed they have to retroactively get reviewed and approved and if it was not in line with any active investigation or assist in an active investigation again it should come under serious scrutiny with actionable consequences.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ptaffs 2mo ago
Regulation of private companies and enforcement of same aren't really the way things work in America. And even the most highly regulated companies struggle with reality practicalities of tamper evident audit trails, for example designating a subset of systems in-scope of SOX or PCI controls where such trails are required.
- mc32 2mo ago
  You could require third party audits on an annual basis and discrepancies and violations addressed and or investigated. Failures need consequences like increased insurance rates, dismissals, etc. if it continues then the Feds get to take over the department/precinct, whatever.

infecto 2mo ago

Flock sucks but I think these kind of conspiracies hurt the argument. You can go look at a number of these contracts since they are part of your local city/municipality. A typical flock agreement is pretty firm that the data is the customers. Some of it might be used for training. There is opt-in to share with other law enforcement but I have not yet seen anything around commercial use. I don’t think much padding is necessary. It’s a metal pole with a cheap camera and SIM card. They charge $3-5k a year per camera. The only upfront cost is a local contractor to install the camera, they typically have one that covers a very large region. Huge margins with that alone.

FireBeyond 2mo ago
> A typical flock agreement is pretty firm that the data is the customers. Some of it might be used for training. There is opt-in to share with other law enforcement but I have not yet seen anything around commercial use. And yet even when opting out, and/or specifically disallowed by the contract, Flock will happily share with other agencies, particularly Federal. It has happened multiple times in my state alone (Washington): https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/flock-safety-cancel-wave-30-cities-alpr-surveillance-contracts-2026/ https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/flock-safety-cancel-wav...
- infecto 2mo ago
  Agree and that is a massive fact issue that we should be focusing on. I think folks are conflating me wanting to focus on the facts as that should be the evidence we use and not what if scenarios.
thaumaturgy 2mo ago
This issue is a lot more nuanced than Flock's standard contract with municipalities. You're right that Flock explicitly -- and repeatedly -- states that agencies "own" the data. They make those statements not just in their contract but also in their marketing materials, in interviews with city councilors, and to the press. But that could also be seen as a fig leaf for their actual control over the data, and as a disclaimer of liability. They've wanted to have it both ways: they get to own every endpoint that the data flows through, and at no time does the supposed customer have real control over the collected data, and yet they aren't responsible for the content or consequences of collecting, transporting, and storing that data. Customers do not even control whether the devices are powered on or off. Two cities here had to ask Flock to disable the devices while the cities reconsidered their contract, and in both cases some devices got reactivated without the cities' permission. We aren't the only ones. Flock has also been incredibly dishonest about their object detection. They repeatedly made statements that it was "just the rear corner of vehicles" or "just a license plate", but when we (legally) acquired some of their devices for analysis, we found hardcoded tags for multiple other objects, including people and bicycles. Flock's "FreeForm" product marketing further supports that they are collecting images of people, and internal training materials from our local police department also supports the belief that Flock is uploading far more than just images of vehicles and license plates. So, my question would be: if you don't control the devices, and you don't own the network, and you don't know what's in the data, then... do you actually own that data? In what substantive way is this situation different from DRM-encumbered media with a revocable license? I mean, sure, you paid for that game or that movie, but if someone else can decide at any time to change your access to it, do you own it? You also made a few other comments rebutting arguments about commercial use of the data. Again, you're technically correct: to date, there are no known cases of Flock directly selling access to ALPR data to a third party in direct exchange for money. But, Flock is a subscription service and cities don't own any of the hardware or the software involved. Flock is directly collecting ALPR data in each city and then selling it back to the city. Even setting that aside, their valuation in 2025 strongly suggested a connection between the data they were collecting and the amount of capital investors were willing to provide. $7.5 billion valuation against $300 million ARR, combined with ALPRs mostly cobbled together from open source or off-the-shelf software and cheap hardware and installed by a nationwide fleet of contractors: it's really hard to look at all the numbers and not conclude that the most valuable asset Flock had was the data they were collecting. If Flock did get $275 million of additional funding largely on the value of the data they had access to, is that really substantially different from commercial sale of the data?

consensus1 2mo ago

It's too late for that. This would have maybe worked 30 years ago, but since the Patriot Act and FISA we have literal secret courts approving >99% of the government's requests for surveillance. The existence of the data is now enough to guarantee its misuse.

jubilanti 2mo ago

> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts. The Los Angeles Police Department annual budget is over $2 billion. A couple million a year to flock is a drop in the bucket.

kotaKat 2mo ago

> What's to stop them from selling this license plate data to the police or to other parties to pad their quarterly numbers? Motorola does! https://drndata.com/ https://drndata.com/ If you're a private repo-man you too can also buy Vigilant Solutions (now Motorola) ALPR cameras to track down deadbeats and take their cars. Note the list of "Trusted by Fortune 500 data-driven companies" there. All of them are sub-prime lenders and cater to the 24.99% APR marketplace. Even funnier they now sell the bodycams over through DRN too to the repo guys. https://drndata.com/body-worn-camera/ https://drndata.com/body-worn-camera/