Browse
Log in / Register
Share
April 10, 2025 – In response to mounting public backlash over privacy and surveillance, Flock Safety is rolling out stricter policies for its automated license plate readers (ALPRs) in Connecticut and nationwide. The company’s changes come just as Connecticut lawmakers advance a bill that would impose additional state-level restrictions on how police use ALPR data.
Flock’s new rules, announced Thursday, include flagging any questionable queries, requiring law enforcement to document the reason for each vehicle lookup, and slashing the default data retention period from 30 days to just 7 days. “We’ve realized our responsibility, and our opportunity to set a new standard for safety and privacy has grown with it,” said Garrett Langley, CEO of Flock Safety.
The technology, which captures a car’s color, make, model, and license plate, has been praised by many police departments for helping solve crimes. “Last month alone, we helped detect over a thousand missing people and over 20,000 stolen cars,” Langley noted. But the same capability has fueled concerns about surveillance creep. In Milford, Connecticut, where police have deployed Flock cameras, resident Andrew Rice warned, “We are entering an unprecedented phase in American history. We are building a surveillance state that is not here to protect us but to control us.”
Groton Police Chief L.J. Fusaro Jr. said during a Tuesday press conference that his department is closely monitoring usage. “It’s important to us as police leaders to make sure there are provisions not just in policy but in law. If someone accesses data that shouldn’t, or it’s shared where it should not be, we will take prompt action,” he said.
Meanwhile, the state legislature is considering a bill that would require police to obtain a warrant before using an ALPR system for any purpose other than immediate emergency response. The proposal, which has bipartisan support, would also mandate annual audits of ALPR data access and require public transparency reports. If passed, Connecticut would join a handful of states—including California, Vermont, and Texas—that have enacted similar guardrails.
Privacy advocates say the Flock policy changes, while welcome, lack teeth because they are voluntary and company-enforced. “The system requires trust not only in local government but also in private companies whose sole purpose is to collect, manage, and profit from our data,” said Erin Gore of Milford. She and other critics argue that real accountability requires independent oversight, not corporate promises.
Flock’s revision of its data retention policy is particularly significant. The previous 30-day window gave police a broad look at vehicle movements over an extended period; a 7-day window sharply limits the “dragnet” potential. The new policy also requires that any access to historical data be logged with a specific investigative rationale, and supervisors must review flagged queries within 24 hours.
The company’s move appears to be a preemptive effort to avoid stricter government mandates. Langley framed it as a natural evolution. “Nine years ago, we started the company for a really simple reason: how do we build safer neighborhoods? How do we build safer cities?” he said. “We’ve learned that privacy and safety can coexist, and we’re committed to leading that change.”
Still, questions remain about enforcement. Flock says it will audit police usage and can revoke access for violations, but no independent watchdog agency will be involved. The Connecticut bill, if enacted, would create a state-level oversight board.
As of now, Flock operates in over 4,000 communities across the U.S., making it the largest private ALPR network. The company’s decision to tighten rules may set a new industry standard, but it also underscores the growing tension between public safety and digital privacy in an era of mass surveillance.
