r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • 6h ago
Privacy Flock Is Losing Dozens of Contracts as Controversy Grows
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/flock-losing-dozens-contracts-controversy-194808945.html190
u/DMmeNiceTitties 6h ago
Good, fuck 'em.
→ More replies (2)29
u/TM761152 2h ago
Cut off one head, and another one takes it's place. Sometimes two.
They're literally a Hydra.
158
u/PewterButters 6h ago
In an election year the easiest slam dunk in the world is to ban these things and make a big deal of it. Who out there is pro-flock? Take credit for ridding your town of it, easiest election bump there is.
70
u/misogichan 5h ago
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't care. It's the same reason the Patriot Act kept getting extended for 14 years past its sunset date.
That and I think police are pro-flock and they like to loudly protest whenever you try to take power or tools away from them.
19
u/theghostmachine 4h ago
Flock is giving seminars to police, teaching them how to lobby city councils to approve contracts
Edit: "pressure" would be a better word than "lobby"
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)5
u/ItsSadTimes 1h ago
Thats the biggest thing, so many people just dont care about their privacy. I had a friend who paid for Discord Nitro and when that whole age verification thing started going around we were saying he should cancel it to vote with his wallet (I never even bought it). And he said he didnt care if they had his data or who they'd sell it to. He then tried to claim ownership over the win when the got rid of their contracts with that shady age verification company and restricted the age verification thing to only a few server with kids, like he somehow did something by doing nothing.
Everyone wants their privacy, but no one wants to be inconvenienced.
5
u/happygocrazee 4h ago
Most people outside of Reddit have no idea that these are a thing.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)2
u/SirDigbyChknCaesar 3h ago
Spy cameras and data center moratoriums would get you far in an election.
422
u/alternatingflan 6h ago
They are unconstitutional.
129
u/grumpyfan 5h ago
IANAL, but as I understand it, they technically operate in a grey area of the law since they are not owned or run by the government. The pictures are taken on public property of people and vehicles in a public space. The courts have ruled that public space photos are free use and that the Constitution has no protections against such things. That being said, I think they violate privacy and law enforcement's use of these pushes the boundaries of intent of the law. We need new laws enacted that restrict the access and use of such data and a way for citizens to gain access to any data where they are being charged with a crime based on the use of the data.
147
u/Visible-Departure863 5h ago edited 3h ago
Garrett Langley, Flock CEO thinks anyone against flock is a Domestic Terrorist.
So, recently SCOUTS ruled that collection of bulk location data counts as a warrantless search. In that it violates peoples' reasonable expectation to privacy. The way Flock is operating, as a pseudo arm of the state, is attempting to give them ground to claim that their only a third party.Thus have no obligation to respect the fourth amendment. The courts have also found this "work around' violates the 4th amendment.
There are several cases working their way through ligation, and if SCOUTS stays consist, will ultimately find that that flock is a 4th amendment violation. Many are shared below.
The premise behind Flock being a privacy violation, is related to the entire system and how it tracks you. For example, it is unreasonable to expect privacy in a single location, in front of a single camera. BUT!, if you add multiple cameras/location data along someone's route to the point where you can pin point their location at any given time, it transition into someone basically stalking you. We have a reasonable expectation with Flock/the Government, in that, it is reasonable to believe they're not looking over our shoulder 24/7 and can even pin point when we shit. Vice Versa.
A Snippet from an article below "A federal judge ruled in the city's favor in January, but that decision is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District.
Quinnipiac School of Law professor Chester Fernandez said federal courts have so far narrowly ruled in specific cases that the way Flock cameras have been used does not violate the Fourth Amendment. He also pointed to United States v. Porter, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Flock cam usage was allowed without a warrant for someone stopped with an already active arrest warrant and that there was no expectation of privacy on public roads for drivers.
However, Fernandez noted the U.S. Supreme Court has required warrants in other cases involving similar technology police gather, including cell site locations in Carpenter v. United States and GPS trackers in United States v. Jones. He said the key legal question is how much of a person's movements can be tracked through Flock cameras without a warrant and where that line is drawn." (Zelden, 2026).
So, How you can challenge flock in court:
- Legal Standard: To be admissible, the prosecution must demonstrate that the system was functioning correctly at the time of the scan and that the data has not been tampered with. (There are countless examples of vulnerabilities and ability to edit footage.)
- Case Reference: In State v. Loomis (Wisconsin, though primarily about risk assessment algorithms), courts emphasized the need for transparency regarding algorithmic reliability. While not an ALPR case specifically, the principle applies: if the defendant challenges the accuracy, the state must produce calibration logs and operator testimony. (Important if they use it to establish probable cause. So much so there are police departments lying about Flock and have a policy to only admit it once asked by an attorney.)
Without going to deep into the weeds Flock has been caught in lies and manipulating the facts of cases to make it seem like what they are doing is legitimate. For example, they lie and say they are strictly license plate readers, but it has been proven in their training material and by others that they track faces/personal traits (Barrientos, 2026). I could go on forever but this should be sufficient to understand Flock.
How does the recent SCOTUS ruling Impact Our Flock Overlords (Garrett Langsley)?
The majority opinion for Chatrie Vs United States was Police Officers conducted a 4th amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie's location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone location information. This effectively killed the third party exception they were relying on. It confirmed that passive and pervasive surveillance networks, even those of short duration, even through a 3rd party, and even in public constituted a 4th amendment search. Their are question surrounding probable cause, but with all these instance of mistaken identify, one CA city was 70%, paired with their use of facial, trait, and algorithm technologies makes it very unlikely to be constitutional. If the two hours of google history triggers a 4th protection like in Chatrie's, it certainly will trigger for a persistent camera network that logs every vehicle, location, and face of everybody that passes by.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2026, June 29). ACLU applauds important Supreme Court decision making clear location data is protected by the Constitution. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-important-supreme-court-decision-making-clear-location-data-is-protected-by-fourth-amendment
Barrientos, A. (2026). Flock Safety says its cameras don't track people. Its own training videos disagree. Gadget Review. https://www.gadgetreview.com/flock-safety-says-its-cameras-dont-track-people-its-own-training-videos-disagree
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018).
Chen, R. (2026, July 26). Inside the growing police use and misuse of Flock's license-plate cameras. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/26/us/flock-cameras-surveillance-abuse
Leighton, C. (2026). SCOTUS ruling could be bad news for Flock — But won't stop mass surveillance. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/scotus-ruling-could-be-bad-news-for-flock-but-wont-stop-mass-surveillance
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).
United States v. Porter, No. 23-50371 (5th Cir. 2024). Retrieved from https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/can-flock-cameras-violate-the-fourth-amendment-heres-what-federal-courts-have-ruled/3762017
Zelden, J. (2026). Do Flock cameras violate the Fourth Amendment? Here's what federal courts have ruled. NBC Connecticut. https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/can-flock-cameras-violate-the-fourth-amendment-heres-what-federal-courts-have-ruled/3762017
17
u/pixelprophet 3h ago edited 3h ago
Juuuuust going to leave this here:
- Flock Safety Employees Watched Kids’ Gymnastics Room to Pitch Surveillance Tech
- Why are they watching children's playgrounds
- 83,000 of them were used to track down a woman who got an abortion in Texas
- Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines to Create Pretext to Search His Car for Weed
- flock and 28,000 cameras in Atlanta didn't lower crime rates
- In one California town, Flock misread license plates in 71% of the alerts it sent to police
- Ex-cop warns against Flock cameras: ‘It creates a mass surveillance system’
- Why are they on hiking / bike trails?
- Police everywhere abusing them for tracking their spouses and exes
- Used as devices to stalk love interests...
Bonus:
→ More replies (1)3
u/Visible-Departure863 3h ago
Imma snatch those up and add it to the bottom lol
2
u/pixelprophet 3h ago
Please do! You're doin damn fine work!
2
u/Visible-Departure863 3h ago
yea man, thanks. Ive been sick with nothing to do but reddit, so I decided I would correct all this misinformation with a good ol copy pasta to share with the masses lol
→ More replies (9)16
u/Character_Bug_1862 5h ago
Holy shit thank you for all of these sources. Added to my archive. I hadn’t heard about these other cases. How would you say Chatrie v United States fits into all of this?
11
u/Visible-Departure863 4h ago
The majority opinion was Police Officers conducted a 4th amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie's location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone location information.
This effective killed the third party exception they were relying on. It confirmed that passive and pervasive surveillance networks, even those of short duration, even through a 3rd party, and even in public constituted a 4th amendment search. Their are question surrounding proable cause, but with all these instance of mistaken identify, one CA city was 70%, paired with their use of facial, trait, and algorithm technologies makes it very unlikely to be consitutionial. If the two hours of google history triggers a 4th protection like in Chatrie's, it certainly will trigger for a persistent camera network thats logs every velhicle, location, and face of everybody that passes by.
→ More replies (1)2
23
u/slykens1 5h ago
This is my understanding.
What we really need is for the courts to rule that there is no third party exception and that the Fourth Amendment applies to all government requests for information regardless of who possesses that information, period. Alternatively, Congress could pass a law but hell would freeze over first.
The recent ruling in Chatrie was refreshing and is a start down that path.
21
u/The_Lost_Jedi 5h ago
Yeah, the third party loophole needs to be slammed shut.
It's an absolute dodge, because if the government is allowed to pay someone else to do something they're not supposed to do, that's materially the same as doing it.
→ More replies (2)5
8
u/Fifth-Crusader 5h ago
It's honestly absurd that even though the government cannot conduct mass surveillance of US citizens, they're apparently allowed to outsource Constitutional violations to the private sector.
4
u/Mddcat04 5h ago
Yeah, there’s 2 issues here. First the argument that flock is not the government, so they don’t have to comply with the 4th Amendment. I think that argument is BS given that they are government contractors.
The reasonable expectation of privacy question is more complicated. There’s a good argument that you don’t have that sort of expectation against your license plate being scanned. Cops scan plates when they are on patrol every day and there’s no question that is not a 4th amendment search.
In a functional country we would pass data privacy laws that would address things like this.
2
u/upudruvuuduru 3h ago
I think that the law we (world) need is the control and transparency over data taken from us, more than to try (and fail) to remove this tech by force, as each year it will be even cheaper than it already is.
I don't mind law enforcement to use this tech
as long they obey the law
4
u/Z0idberg_MD 5h ago
If the founding fathers considered them for 4 mins they would think them unconstitutional. We are entering a phase of humanity where the capacity of technology necessitates a “this, but not that” approach to constitutionality.
Like very clearly someone walking in a public space should be able to use their phone and record things going on in the park etc., but mass surveillance people with AI backed data tracking system should absolutely be unconstitutional.
2
u/RBeck 4h ago
IANAL, but as I understand it, they technically operate in a grey area of the law since they are not owned or run by the government.
And the constitution only binds the government.
If you think about what Nest or Ring are doing, it's not too dissimilar. Mass collection by cameras everywhere that send footage back to a data center. AI that identifies people instead of cars. Put up and run by the entity that has domain over the property; in one case home and business owners, in the other city sidewalks.
But what really sets that model apart from Flock? What key feature turns mass data collection into an Orwellian system that gets people on their feet to claw back their rights?
It's the searchable database. The ability to make all that data searchable, and even alertable, that anyone at a participating municipality can see a location history of everywhere you go. It's the potential for abuse that brings, but has already happened.
I'm not smart enough to say if Flock cameras are unconstitutional, or at least if the SC would say so. But I think we need to make them illegal somehow.
→ More replies (17)2
2
u/Possible-Tangelo9344 5h ago
I think eventually we'll see the use of them to track near real time movements of individuals without warrants as unconstitutional, based on prior court rulings related to cell phone data tracking.
But, currently that has not happened and the protections haven't been extended.
→ More replies (13)2
u/31LIVEEVIL13 5h ago
they are unconstitutional as is all at the surveillance on our phones all the surveillance of us online, not to mention tying all that together with government data, which was stolen or given to them by members of our own government.
that's not just unconstitutional that's treason, since it's part of a "rEvoLutIoN" from the top AKA a fascist coup, aided by Israel Russia and a bunch of Nazis from South Africa who are here illegally.
126
u/Dumpsterfire_47 6h ago
No celebrating until Flock is insolvent. And the copy cat companies doing the same shit.
→ More replies (2)25
u/daphosta 3h ago
Trump's family owns a lot of Axon that is taking flocks place. I read on a conspiracy subreddit that it's a psyop by the administration to denounce flock and flock only so that cities move to axon. I'm not sure how much truth is to that but I wouldn't put it past them
10
u/OdinzSun 3h ago
Isn’t Axon already the provider of most body cameras? Sounds like a giant monopoly….
→ More replies (1)2
u/Extension-Land-390 1h ago
Americans really have no clue what a miserable dystopia they actually live in. Golden cage indeed.
79
u/3OAM 6h ago
They're just switching to Axon and learning that they need to hide them or mount them higher.
This isn't "surveillance coming to an end." It's "surveillance companies getting smarter about how the surveil."
17
u/thinkconverse 5h ago
Never be first to market.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Jarocket 4h ago
See Flock is far from first. They just found a way to make ALPR sexy and make it a tech company.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Ashamed_Green_8643 3h ago
Impossible. He's got a 50-foot-high force field around his house.
One 60-foot ladder, please.
9
u/Suspicious_Glove_900 3h ago
To me, the bigger danger remains long term. Evil companies don't do the evil stuff out the gate, stupid people do. So you have cops accessing cameras to spy on girlfriends and other bullshit like that. It's bad, but that's not the evil stuff. The surveillance state comes after they're too big to put back in the bottle.
The next step is gonna be for them to play nice as conservative states eat this shit up like idiots and it does help lower crime rates. People are going to point to statistics of it helping, and it's gonna drive a wedge issue that helps push this shit back into the states that are currently pushing back. It's only after we fall for it like suckers that the reason this sucks is really gonna hit.
It's after that point you're gonna see the scary shit.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/Shin-kak-nish 6h ago
Doesn’t help that the flock cameras have super valuable gold and copper wiring that you can sell
3
→ More replies (1)3
u/KnotForNow 3h ago
Is it true that each camera contains as much platinum as a catalytic converter?
3
u/Eternal-Blazing-Sun 1h ago
Yes, I am a professor of catalytic conversion, and those devices contain many valuable metals like platinum, and each one contains over 3oz of gold!
→ More replies (1)
14
u/zffjk 5h ago
They’re also showing up outside of public shooting ranges which tells you that they aren’t just after criminals.
→ More replies (6)
11
u/SlumppShady 5h ago
Lol. Flock. Axon. It doesn't matter about the company it's the effort by many companies. You have to tackle the idea, not the company.
→ More replies (1)
13
5
4
u/chunkalunkk 2h ago
Axon cameras are taking their place. Same concept, different package. Learn to spot those too.
9
4
4
u/Coffee_Transfusion 4h ago
Every American should be Anti-Flock.
…and Anti-Axon. Or any other brand they try to pivot to. We don’t want cameras surveilling our every move in society.
5
u/beefwindowtreatment 4h ago
Anyone else remember the 90's when the right was going crazy over CCTV cameras in the UK and saying that we can't have a surveillance state in the US?
7
6
u/Strange-Target-515 5h ago edited 4h ago
Make it as a difficult as possible and implore your local government to not just ban specific companies, but Automatic License Plate Readers as whole.
Its abuse of the law, for police to ignore what judges, councils, and civillians are saying by just finding another company to do the same thing.
This speaks to a Law Enforcement that is scared of the public, not actually trying to serve them.
They've been hiring officers specifically for coordination regarding surveillance systems.
Thats nothing crazy in its own but it is dangerously approaching "Pre-Crime" style of enforcement.
What this will ultimately lead to is selective class based Enforcement based on Social approval in about 10-20 years if not sooner.
What is likely right now, is Profiling. Which is nothing new and easily provable.
3
u/Visual-Meringue-5839 5h ago
Wait'll people hear how many cameras there are per Tesla.....
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Ill-Tea9411 4h ago edited 3h ago
Dozens? Out of roughly 5,000.
Wake me up when there is some real impact here. Despite massive public protest in my city, the city manager and law enforcement agencies are pulling out all the stops to counter public opposition in order to keep their Flock contracts intact. I am pretty sure that a playbook has been rolled out nationally to strong-arm the retention of these contracts.
3
u/MightyEggrollTW 2h ago
Flock is not mainly losing contracts due controversies, it’s losing contracts due to cities payout for lawsuits and increased insurance premiums from the lawsuits. These cost are exceeding the budgeted cost and the ROI from Flock no longer makes sense. It’s all about money, always has and always will.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/zoufha91 2h ago
They're really paying the price for building them with valuable heavy metals including valuable silver, gold, and platinum
People are hard up I do not blame those who are looking for a little extra money in there pockets
3
3
3
u/SadBadPuppyDad 1h ago
If people understood that our 4th amendment rights mattered as much as their 2nd amendment "I want to make things go boom" rights, this would be a non issue.
5
5
2
2
u/Current_Volume3750 5h ago
Sure, this is good news but there's always another company that will pick up the pieces and be even worse. The Devil you know, the devil you don't know.
2
2
2
2
u/JerrodDRagon 3h ago
My favorite part is they can use flick cameras on us but if a cop records two other cops being racist the cop recording can get in trouble
What a world
2
u/hawaiianhamtaro 3h ago
Get the Flock Out Toolkit - ACLU resource including an email to send to your representatives, graphics to share on social media, info on joining local anti-Flock groups, etc.
Don't Give DHS More Power to Spy on US - Send an email to your Senators in a few clicks
2
u/Samuelmiw 3h ago
Whatever company replaces flock, should just be known as flock and suffer the same as flock.
2
2
2
2
u/kick_heart 3h ago
how many of those contracts are being replaced by a competitor with the same exact privacy invading product and a less toxic brand?
2
u/This_isR2Me 2h ago
Good they shouldn't have had them in t the first place. It violated a reasonable right to privacy that I think everybody deserves.
2
2
u/FancyJesse 2h ago
It would be awesome if they never got the contracts to begin with.
Everyone approving their crap should be named, shamed, and removed.
2
u/millenniumxl-200 1h ago
And here, my city council just extended their contract with them.
"You will do better in Toledo" my ass.
2
2
u/moreobviousthings 1h ago
Seems like under trump, corps who are into the fascist vibe feel like they can go full steam ahead on shilling their fascist products. Trump thinks he can. GOP pols think they can. This shit cannot go much farther before it reaches a point.
2
2
u/ObligatoryID 1h ago
Breaking News!
It was discovered Missing Mitch was the one who took down all the FLOCK cams!
Lock him up!
2
u/agha0013 20m ago
Only for Axon to pick up the contracts hoping no one really pays attention and forgets all about this whole invasive total surveillance machine being built up around them anyway.
2
u/KitsouNere 5h ago
Not fast enough. Get out there and take down more of their shit.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/invalidreddit 2h ago
I don't want them to lose contracts, I want the type of data collection they do to be banned.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Watchtowerwilde 5h ago
and it's simply being swapped for one of those that are even worse aka axon and that's just the cameras. the non-camera tracking is even worse.
1
1
u/ThisGlobalLandscape 5h ago
All flock cameras should be eliminated with expediency.
The “lawmakers” ignore their constituents. I find that criminal. There is nothing wrong with taking things into our own hands.
See something, say something, do something.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Real_Srossics 4h ago
Question. Are they tracking people who travel without a personal vehicle? Like walking, or riding the bus, or rideshare (like Uber?). I’m not fully aware of the extent of these cameras, but I’d like to be. /srs
1
u/EnrollmentTime 4h ago
Flock Safety has experienced rapid revenue growth in 2026, scaling from $300 million to over $500 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR) with strong net retention.
It is a good investment.
1
1
u/turnip4hwat 4h ago
However they are trying to replace it with Axion? Or something by a similar name. The fight continues!
1
1
u/PigglyWigglyDeluxe 4h ago
Reminds me of Bird scooters. Everyone hated them, and almost nobody realizes they were replaced by a different brand that does the same thing.
1
u/Mother_Airline_6276 4h ago
Good and f*ck them in the face, twice. Big brother can eat our collective ass. The snowball is rolling and growing. Yall get ready. For the NSA agent reading this, it won’t be me, but we’re about to see some “true patriots” pretty soon if these corps don’t piss off.
1
1
u/Clutteredmind275 4h ago
And it’s being given to other companies doing the same thing. Flock is just such an easily recognizable name that people only focus on that one company
1
u/braumbles 4h ago
Texas and Florida alone probably keep this company afloat with the hundreds of millions they've spent.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Southernms 4h ago
What the Flock!!! Good🎉
They need to go!
2
u/antigravityshit 4h ago
Unfortunately some other company will take their place.
2
u/Southernms 4h ago
I think the public might just take new ones down or demand they be taken down. This issue isn’t going away. More people are finding out about this and getting angry.
This is a huge overreach. I remember when our police department here (the south) asked people to patch in their ring cameras into a database where they could see who’s coming and going. It wasn’t super popular. So it sounds like they just went around that and did their own thing.
→ More replies (2)
3.0k
u/Excellent_Call304 6h ago
Thats awesome. But it sucks that they are just being replaced by lesser known companies that are just as evil