Flock tool promises oversight, but how it works stays murky

Flock Safety, the surveillance company whose automated license plate readers have become ubiquitous in American policing, rolled out a package of new policies and tools Thursday aimed at curbing abuse of its systems — but the centerpiece of that effort, a tool called Audit Assistance, remains something of a black box. The company has touted the tool as a way to spot officers who misuse its cameras, but it has not explained how the tool actually works, leaving privacy advocates and researchers skeptical about whether it amounts to real accountability or just a public relations gesture.

A seven-day data default

One of the more tangible changes Flock announced is a recommendation that police departments retain data for seven days instead of the previous 30-day default. The shorter retention window reduces how long sensitive location data sits in Flock's systems, a welcome shift for privacy advocates who have long worried about the surveillance footprint of license plate readers.

But the change comes with a catch. Flock also introduced a feature it calls “Evidence Mode,” which customers can turn on when they need to keep data longer for what the company calls “exceptional cases.” Evidence Mode requires a specific case number, suggesting a deliberate step, but it means the data retention policy is not absolute — it can be extended when a department deems it necessary.

Customers will also now be able to set limits on the data they share with other customers based on the type of offense under investigation. That is a shift from a more open sharing model, giving agencies some control over who sees their data and under what circumstances.

Audit Assistance becomes mandatory

The most significant change, though, is Flock's decision to make Audit Assistance mandatory. The tool launched in April, and Flock says more than one-third of its customers have already turned it on. By the end of the year, all customers will be required to enable it.

Flock describes Audit Assistance in broad terms. In a blog post, the company said it “detects abnormal activity and flags it for Administrator review.” When a flag is triggered, the tool can automatically lock out users until an administrator intervenes. Flock says the tool has already helped customers spot and stop abuse, but it doesn't offer specifics on how often that has happened or what the flags looked like.

Executives talk around the details

Flock's executives have been more than happy to describe what Audit Assistance can do, but they've been careful not to explain how it does it. Ashley Haber, Flock's head of trust and compliance, said in a video that the tool can flag “what may look like an odd search history from a specific user,” helping customers understand how their users are operating the system.

In another video, Flock co-founder Paige Todd offered a more concrete example: “Audit Assistance actually flags unusual patterns early. Think a user searching the same plate repetitively for more than 30 days.”

Those examples give a sense of what the tool might look for, but they don't explain the underlying technology. Flock has not said whether Audit Assistance uses a large language model or what kind of data it was trained on. The company told TechCrunch that Audit Assistance is not based on Machine Learning or AI, describing it instead as “a data tool that flags atypical search patterns for further review.”

One example Flock offered of what might trigger a flag: a user searching for the same plate using multiple different case codes, which could indicate abuse. But a flag, the company stressed, “does not mean that it is definitely abuse — it only means it warrants further investigation.”

What Flock leaves unanswered

Even with those details, numerous questions remain. TechCrunch has asked Flock for more information about how the algorithm works, what data it uses, and what exactly counts as “abnormal activity.” The company has not provided answers.

There are also no public statistics on how effective Audit Assistance is. Flock has not shared any data on false positive or false negative rates, and it has not said whether the tool has been audited by a third party. The company has not offered any numbers that would help an outside observer assess whether the tool is actually catching abuse or missing it.

Critics question the tool's claims

Privacy advocates are not convinced. Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in response to Flock's announcement that “there is no evidence that the tool works consistently” to address abuse.

“While dozens of officers have recently been arrested, fired, or otherwise disciplined for misusing Flock for personal reasons, Flock claims these arrests are proof its auditing tool works. However, unless we know the number of officers misusing the system, we cannot conclude if Flock and its auditing tools are catching 95% of violators or 5%. Flock needs to have its auditing tool analyzed by an independent evaluator to determine its actual effectiveness. Until then, we don’t know if the tool is a real security measure or just window dressing.”

— Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union

Cooper Quintin, a security researcher and senior public interest technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told TechCrunch that even a working Audit Assistance might not be enough. “If it does work, law enforcement will figure out ways to get around it,” he said, adding that what ultimately matters is whether abusers are caught and held accountable. “If there are no consequences for abuse and whoever [the tool] reports to is the same police agency that is doing the abuse, it’s just a fig leaf for Flock. The best way to ensure accountability is to pass laws constraining the use of this technology and requiring a warrant for its use.”

Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, took a more measured view. She told TechCrunch that making Audit Assistance mandatory is a step in the right direction, and that “in theory” the tool is “a great idea.” But she also said the tool itself “needs to be audited” because there's not enough information about how it works in practice.

An arrest tied to the tool

Flock's push for accountability comes after years of reported incidents of customers abusing its systems. Earlier this week, three former Georgia sheriff's deputies were arrested and accused of using Flock cameras to stalk people with whom they had a “personal relationship at the time,” as the Bibb County Sheriff's Office said in a press release. Bibb County Sheriff David Davis specifically credited Flock's Audit Assistance tool for uncovering the misuse.

That case gives Flock a concrete example to point to when it says the tool works. But it also highlights the gap between Flock's claims and the lack of independent verification. One arrest, however notable, doesn't tell you how many other instances of abuse went undetected.

Why it matters

Flock is making a bold claim: that a software tool can police the police. The company's decision to require Audit Assistance is a step toward acknowledging that its products have been misused, and it's a smart public relations move in an environment where surveillance technology faces increasing scrutiny. But the lack of transparency about how the tool works undercuts its credibility.

If Audit Assistance is as good as Flock says it is, the company should be able to show its work. Without third-party audits, public data on false positives, or a clear explanation of the algorithm, the tool's true effectiveness remains an open question. And if the tool is less effective than advertised, it could end up serving as a fig leaf — a way for Flock to claim it has addressed abuse without actually fixing the underlying problems. For now, the promise of accountability is there, but the proof is not.