Flock Safety built its name around camera systems that help police search for license plates. Its latest search tools reach beyond cars, giving police several ways to look for people captured on camera.
That change puts more attention on how the system turns ordinary descriptions into searches across a camera network. Flock says its AI search tool helps police find relevant information while maintaining safeguards, but it also warns that the AI may be inaccurate or incomplete. The combination of broad searches and imperfect results has fueled controversy around the company’s technology.
From license plates to descriptions
One part of the system, called FreeForm, lets officers use plain language to search for people. Instead of starting with a license plate, an officer can enter a description and ask the system to find matching footage. Flock also offers Smart Sort, which lets officers approve or reject footage so the search results can be refined.
The process is not a simple visual lookup that shows every possible match. Flock’s system decides, out of sight of the police department, which descriptions of a person to search for. It then scores those descriptions against categories that include race, religion, and political, social, and cultural expression.
That last category raises a particular concern. Political and cultural expression is “one of the most protective areas” under the First Amendment, Tom Bowman said, and it “seems like that actually has the least concern from a policing perspective.” The system’s inclusion of such descriptions means the search process can touch on activities and identities beyond the physical details of a person or vehicle.
No screen operating at that scale is accurate. Flock’s own description of the tool acknowledges that its AI can return information that is inaccurate or incomplete, while the company presents the system as a way to help police find relevant information with safeguards. Those two facts sit at the center of the debate: the tool can widen a search, but its results still require judgment.
Misuse reports and new controls
Flock has faced backlash over its surveillance technology. Police departments have canceled contracts, and city councils have voted cameras out. Reports have also described misuse, including stalking and the sharing of data with numerous organizations.
One case brought the issue to Congress. A Texas deputy searched more than 83,000 cameras for a woman who had an abortion, prompting two members of Congress to write to Flock CEO Garrett Langley. The size of that search shows how a tool built around a large camera network can extend far beyond one location or one department’s immediate view.
State data access has raised another legal concern. Illinois found that Flock had allowed federal immigration agents to access state camera data in violation of state law. Alpharetta, Georgia, is also identified as a city sharing Flock data, adding to the questions about who can obtain information collected through the company’s systems.
Flock answered in August with a package of policy and system changes. The company shortened the default period for retaining data, required case codes for every search, and added automated auditing designed to catch officers misusing the tool.
Those changes focus on the trail left by a search: how long data remains available, whether an officer must connect a search to a case, and whether the system can flag misuse. They do not change the fact that Flock’s latest tools let police search for people rather than only the license plates on their cars.
Why the search design matters
The technology’s design matters because the search begins with language and categories, not just a fixed identifier. FreeForm allows an officer to describe a person, while the system chooses which descriptions to examine. Smart Sort then gives the officer a role in shaping the results by approving or rejecting footage.
That setup creates several points where a search can be affected: the words entered by the officer, the categories selected by the AI, the footage returned by the system, and the choices made during refinement. Flock says safeguards are part of the tool, but its warning about inaccurate or incomplete AI results makes human review necessary.
The concerns also reach beyond accuracy. Searches involving race, religion, or political and cultural expression can raise questions about privacy and First Amendment protections, especially when the system searches across more than 83,000 cameras. A search may produce information, but the system’s scoring and the officer’s decisions shape what information receives attention.
Flock’s changes offer one response: shorter data retention, case codes, and auditing. The continuing dispute is whether those controls match the reach of the search tools. Police now have options that can look for people on camera, not just vehicles, and communities are deciding how much access and oversight that power should carry.
Based on
