This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flock Safety article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article reads as if it was written by a competitor. Its language is biased and probably aims to further some agenda. It includes only negative examples, despite Flock's wide support and adoption by police departments across the country (the article provides few examples of this). This hit piece needs to be fixed. 128.135.204.121 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any specific language that you would suggest is biased? Do you have reliable sources providing positive counterexamples? BD2412 T 02:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not forgotten about this. I can see that there are some questionable sources, and quite a bit of missing information and context. I will revisit within the next few weeks. BD2412 T 02:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Controversy sections, I am moving this section to talk page for discussion and potential reconstruction based on a proper determination of noteworthiness of points raised. BD2412 T 14:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are well-sourced examples of potential issues with this company's technology, and their potential societal impacts render them sufficiently noteworthy. 42-BRT (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding ongoing litigation pertinent to the legality of this company's operations under federal law is particularly noteworthy and without doubt warrants inclusion in this article. 42-BRT (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We generally avoid including "ongoing litigation" because literally anyone can file a lawsuit claiming literally anything. Litigation becomes noteworthy when there is an actual adjudication of liability, and this adjudication is reported in reliable sources. Furthermore, not every instance of a use of technology is noteworthy for the article on that technology. We don't include in the hammer article every report of a murder being committed with a hammer; we don't include in our articles on various makes and models of firearms individual misuses of those firearms, whether by criminals or by police. BD2412 T 20:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to the 4A case for the moment. The litigation in Virginia is definitely noteworthy, because a major public interest law firm is challenging the constitutionality of the primary service that this company offers to government clients. It is a credible challenge (as the federal judge in that case asserted) to the primary selling point of the company's flagship product. It challenges arguably the most fundamental aspect of their operations. I'd liken it to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which challenged the U.S. Food & Drug Admin.'s ability to approve medications, similarly one of the primary functions of that organization. I imagine that the FDA's page included mention of that lawsuit before it was decided.

As for the discussion about why Honda Civic doesn't include every crime ever committed with that vehicle (or whatever other examples you use in that analogy) - I'd be happy to carry on that debate where you mentioned it earlier. 42-BRT (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that point is well-taken, and have restored the Fourth Amendment case (minus the citation to the complaint, which is a primary source, and should not be used in a Wikipedia article, and the motion practice at the end). However, I would caution that your interpretation of that content is a bit off. The constitutionality of the use of the product here is not being challenged, just the use of data in prosecutions. A win for the challenger would not force the removal of these cameras, it would just prohibit their introduction into evidence in criminal proceedings. BD2412 T 01:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We generally avoid including "ongoing litigation" because literally anyone can file a lawsuit claiming literally anything. Who is we? What policy are you referring to? Kire1975 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Controversies and litigation ==

Critics argue that Flock's claims about its impact on crime rates lack rigorous scientific backing and might not hold up under closer scrutiny. Despite these criticisms, some law enforcement officials praise the technology for its utility in solving cases. Skepticism remains among academics and some law enforcement officials regarding the actual efficacy of Flock's technology in reducing overall crime rates, suggesting a need for more transparent and comprehensive analysis.^[1]

There are privacy concerns about Flock's systems.^[2][3][4][5] Flock's surveillance technology is often criticized for its broadening of public surveillance, particularly affecting minorities, and leading to a chilling effect on civil liberties, as described by privacy experts and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that ALPRs like Flock create more problems than they solve.^[6] There are concerns that Flock's system may cause harm, especially to minorities.^[7]

Privacy expert Jodi Daniels warns Flock's technology "creates an environment where individuals may feel as though they are under constant surveillance. This can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and other civil liberties, as people might become hesitant to express themselves or participate in certain activities due to the fear of being recorded and possibly monitored by law enforcement."^[8]

The American Civil Liberties Union released a report in March 2022 criticizing both Flock Safety's business model and its products.^[9] In 2023, the ACLU acknowledged some uses of ALPRS could be acceptable, but emphasized the need for careful controls:^[10]

We don't find every use of ALPRs objectionable. For example, we do not generally object to using them to check license plates against lists of stolen cars, for AMBER Alerts, or for toll collection, provided they are deployed and used fairly and subject to proper checks and balances, such as ensuring devices are not disproportionately deployed in low-income communities and communities of color, and that the "hot lists" they are run against are legitimate and up to date. But there's no reason the technology should be used to create comprehensive records of everybody's comings and goings — and that is precisely what ALPR databases like Flock's are doing. In our country, the government should not be tracking us unless it has individualized suspicion that we're engaged in wrongdoing.

Flock states its cameras and technology only captures data from vehicles, and the machine learning is specifically designed not to identify people. Flock has defended itself against "myths" about license plate readers.^[11] Although Flock Safety claims their cameras reduce crime, opponents argue that there is no clear evidence for this.^[12] In 2023, Atlanta police (Cobb County) credited a Flock license plate recognition system for helping them track down a gunman.^[13]

Flock's surveillance model has also brought debates into towns between supporters and opponents of the technology.^{[14][15][16][17]} Menlo Park, California opted out of a contract in 2023, bucking trends of nearby cities.^[18]

A 2023 report by the University of Michigan found:^[19][20]

"Recent studies examining the accuracy of ALPRs show that they often misread license plates, leading to disastrous real-world consequences, including violent arrests of innocent people. ALPR errors arise not only from shortcomings internal to their technology but from the hot lists they depend on to provide matches.

Even when ALPRs work as intended, the vast majority of images taken are not connected to any criminal activity. As most jurisdictions have no policies regarding retention limits, many agencies keep these scans on innocent people indefinitely. This can allow the government to maintain an overarching and potentially unconstitutional level of surveillance and can lead to abuse.

In some instances, officers have misused confidential databases 'to get information on romantic partners, business associates, neighbors, journalists and others for reasons that have nothing to do with daily police work.' Professional abuse includes targeting religious minorities and communities of color. Reproductive rights advocates are now raising alarms about the ways police and others could use ALPRs for the targeting of abortion clinics in the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade."

Critics argue for stringent controls and limitations on ALPR use to prevent disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities and to safeguard against the creation of expansive surveillance databases. Inaccuracies in ALPR technology have led to wrongful arrests and privacy invasions, raising significant concerns about the technology's reliability and the potential for misuse.

In at least two documented cases, Flock ALPR systems have been misused by police officers to stalk their domestic partners.^[21]

In October 2022, a police detective in Kechi, Kansas was found to have used Flock's system to follow his estranged wife over the course of a month. His department has access to Flock ALPR data from other cities' ALPR networks, including the Wichita Police Department, which allowed him to track his wife's whereabouts across multiple communities. Following an audit of officers' database access, the detective was arrested, and his state law enforcement certification was later revoked.^[22][23]

In another case, the chief of police in Sedgwick, Kansas, Lee Nygaard, used Flock's systems to track his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, searching for their vehicles on the Flock database more than 200 times from June to October 2023. He searched for their vehicles under the guise of investigating drug abuses, child abduction, and suspicious activity, and used a police vehicle to follow and harass his victims.^[24] Nygaard resigned amidst the controversy, lost his law enforcement certification, and was sentenced to 18 months' probation. Flock refused media requests for an interview following the incident, and declined to comment on previous reports of abuses of their database.^[21]

In Española, New Mexico, two motorists were stopped and detained by police after Flock ALPRs mistook their vehicles for those associated with crimes. In one case, a 21-year-old woman was stopped after a Flock ALPR misread her vehicle's license plate as one reported stolen, and she and her 12-year-old sister were arrested at gunpoint before officers discovered the error. In the other, a 17-year-old high school student was stopped, searched, and arrested at gunpoint by a state trooper after his vehicle was photographed by a Flock ALPR and mistaken for a similar vehicle spotted near a crime scene. Both motorists sued the city of Española for damages, alleging negligence and violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment.^[25][26]

Flock has been accused by multiple state transportation and public safety agencies of installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission. A 2024 Forbes report found that Flock had installed hundreds of devices on public roads in multiple states without securing necessary permits.^[27][28]

In one case, in Treasure Island, Florida, a Flock ALPR was installed on Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way without the agency's permission. Days after its installation in February 2023, FDOT demanded its removal, an order Flock did not comply with until the following November. The agency later required Flock to conduct a review of all of its installations in Florida, which identified over 800 ALPRs out of regulatory compliance.^[28]

From 2022 to 2024, the South Carolina Department of Transportation identified more than 200 Flock ALPRs installed on public roads without required permits. In July 2023, the agency issued a moratorium on new installations of Flock ALPRs, and ordered a safety and compliance review of all existing installations.^[28]

Flock was sued in March 2023 by the North Carolina Alarm Systems Licensing Board, which accused the company of installing its devices for multiple years without obtaining a license from the board, which is required to install certain electronic security equipment in the state.^[29] An injunction issued in the case in November 2023 prohibited Flock from installing any new equipment in North Carolina without securing a license;^[30] a second injunction in March 2024 required Flock to apply for the license or face a ban from doing business in North Carolina.^[31] Following the rulings, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill terminated a contract with Flock, citing the company's violation of state law.^[30]

In September 2024, the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a cease and desist notice, ordering Flock to cease operations on private property in Texas until it obtained a required license to provide private security services in the state.^[32] Flock announced in October that they had completed the Texas licensure process.^[33]

In February 2024, Flock hired Ulises Cabrera, the mayor of Moreno Valley, California, as a community engagement manager, a position Flock describes as meant to "guide law enforcement customers through the public procurement process" and "ensure... a positive regulatory environment" for the company and "ordinances that promote the use of Flock technology." Cabrera left the position in June 2024, but later campaigned on his approval of a citywide Flock ALPR network in his 2024 campaign for reelection as mayor, without disclosing that he was employed by the company.^[34]

Cabrera sued Flock in January 2025, alleging that Flock demanded that he use his position as mayor to benefit the company, and wrongfully terminated him when he refused. He also accused the company of underreporting the number of ALPRs it installed for a project in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, and that the company retaliated against him for raising concerns with the project. Flock denied all of Cabrera's allegations, and asserted that their hiring of a sitting mayor did not violate California's conflict-of-interest laws.^[34]

We should aim to condense the above to the most relevant single paragraph or two of criticism. BD2412 T 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the above, I think the broad-based concerns are the most encyclopedic. By contrast, instances of individual misuse seem comparable to other misuses of technology. If a police officer stalked their ex-girlfriend while driving a Honda Civic, we would not add such an incident to the article on that vehicle. BD2412 T 17:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that is a false equivalence. In the hypothetical case you mentioned, the stalking could've just as easily been carried out with a Cybertruck. The brand of vehicle is of little importance to the event that took place, because automobiles are already so widespread in society- why I argued (apparently unsuccessfully) for the removal of that model's name from the title of 2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion. Despite the market achievements of the Honda Civic, it was not so influential in the development of automotive transportation as to enable the abuse of an automobile in the case you posit.

However, if that case involved a Ford Model T in that model's early history, I believe there would be a stronger case to do so. It's because that particular automobile was so influential in the expanded accessibility of automotive travel, and therefore enabled the abuse of automobiles (as was demonstrated in The Great Gatsby, written in the same period of time). Flock is in a similar position to Ford in the 1920s; this specific company disrupted the industry of ALPRs so greatly as to make them more accessible and widespread (as Ford did the automobile), as a wealth of research has concluded, and the company itself has repeatedly touted.

The expansion of ALPRs, led by Flock and their products, directly enabled the abuses of this company's version of said technology in the two Kansas stalking cases, as was mentioned in the section that you removed from this article. I would assert that the primary difference between Flock's ALPRs and those of police-oriented competitors like Motorola is not that they use "child-friendly" imagery or specific marketing themes- but that their devices are cheaper and have a broader range of usability than their competitors' devices. That set them apart from the wider ALPR industry so completely that they were able to dominate the market- as I understand, this singular company supplies the majority of ALPRs to U.S. police departments. They are the primary driver of ALPRs' rapid expansion, and that is one reason that Flock specifically is the subject of so much public controversy. Flock is in a category of their own among ALPR makers, and these cases are specific to the business model that Flock provides, especially since they both involved sharing of data between Flock-operating police agencies, a feature that I believe Flock also introduced to the industry. 42-BRT (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have mention of crimes committed using Model T's even from when the brand was new. We do have an article on Automatic number-plate recognition, which has a much more proportionate "Controversy" section, which would be a more appropriate home to concerns about the technology as more broadly described. As for the subject differing from their competitors in that "their devices are cheaper and have a broader range of usability than their competitors' devices", that sounds right, but I would be interested in seeing a source for that. If we put it in the article just like that, it would sound like marketing for the subject, even if the intent is to highlight criticisms. BD2412 T 01:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Model T argument was hypothetical, just as yours involving the Civic was. 42-BRT (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's hypothetical, I just don't think the outcome would (or should) be any different. BD2412 T 02:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sharing of data between agencies, a feature which Flock at least claims is unique to their ALPRs, is the key factor in why the reported case in which Flock ALPRs were used to track a woman seeking an abortion (which I added and you quickly removed) is relevant specifically to Flock Safety. 42-BRT (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cases dealing with Flock's failure to follow applicable permitting laws are also specifically relevant to this company. Similar reports have not been made, to my knowledge, of any competitor of Flock Safety. And I would argue that if a company involved in law enforcement is repeatedly and credibly reported to act in ignorance or violation of the law, that is a sufficiently notable controversy to include in an article discussing that company. 42-BRT (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the abortion incident to content proportionate to its significance to this article subject. There has been a tendency to hang a lot of details irrelevant to the subject on the thinnest hooks of relevance, which is contravened by WP:COATRACK. BD2412 T 03:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, given that the case at hand pertains to a potential attempt by law enforcement in one state to use these devices to enforce laws in their state outside of their jurisdiction (and in violation of court decisions, per the cited 404 Media article); and that the use of ALPRs to enforce bans on abortion, a highly controversial topic of public interest, has been cited by reputable advocacy organizations as a concern relating to potential invasions of privacy regarding ALPRs (and in some cases, specifically those operated by Flock Safety); which is the title of the subheading under which we've both placed this paragraph. 42-BRT (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate if you would address the points I have raised regarding the relevance to this article of other controversies that you have removed, under the argument of insufficient relevance to this article, to reach consensus on how those controversies should be acknowledged in this article. 42-BRT (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, however, is the ALPRs can be used to invade privacy, by public officials. There are broader articles on Wikipedia about invasions of privacy where this concern would be more appropriately expressed. Again, if there is a particular brand of flashlights that is ubiquitous among law enforcement officials, and they use these flashlights to look into people's houses without a warrant, we are not going to add that information to the article on the flashlight maker. We might add information to an article on invasion of privacy on the use of flashlights to make warrantless observations into people's houses. BD2412 T 03:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I wouldn't advocate for listing on Ford Explorer every instance of police misconduct involving that vehicle, because there are surely too many to count, and any of them could've just as easily happened if the police involved were driving a Dodge Durango. However, that does not dispute that there are certain characteristics specific to Flock Safety's products that enable the controversies.

However, the Ford Explorer, specifically, was reportedly subject to a design flaw which caused some of those vehicles to expose police officers to toxic carbon monoxide gas while on duty, resulting in at least one lawsuit. That is a controversial and widely reported issue specifically, and only, with the Ford Motor Company and its Explorer model. It is not an issue with police cars generally, so I would advocate for its inclusion in the article Ford Explorer, rather than Police car. It is an example of a supplier of police equipment acting in a manner that is contradictory to the generally understood goal of police to protect the public from harm; similar to the reports of Flock Safety, and to the best of my knowledge only Flock Safety, violating state laws in the installation of their products, contradictory to the idea of enforcement of laws.

Now in the example you've given involving a flashlight, I would argue that it would be appropriate and necessary to mention on a popular police flashlight manufacturer's article (let's say, hypothetically, Streamlight) if that company were the developer and/or exclusive producer of a flashlight which gave police more power to commit those warrantless observations than competing flashlights. Flock Safety did just that: they developed and exclusively produce a product which has unique features that make it objectively more effective in performing many of the functions of ALPRs which are alleged to be violations of privacy. In this case, both specifically Streamlight in my hypothetical example, and specifically Flock Safety in the actual subject of this debate, would be the sole creators of devices which are more powerful, and thus more subject to controversy, than competing devices. I posit that this would make controversies regarding both companies' products' unique features relevant for inclusion in their respective articles. 42-BRT (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case (the Streamlight hypothetical), we would have a line in the article to that general effect. We would not have a paragraph describing how, for example, on January 20, 2024, officer John Johnson of the Shelby County Police Department used a flashlight to peer into the house of Marsha Mayfield on North Pine Street, and was thereby able to observe all of Mayfield's furniture and belongings, including her antique lamps inherited from her grandmother, and that Mayfield then filed a lawsuit asserting invasion of privacy in the local county court, which ruled that this was not a warrantless search, receiving criticism from legal scholars. If there were numerous documented instances, we would still summarize them in a line to that general effect. BD2412 T 17:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you do that, rather than just delete the topics outright? 42-BRT (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And while I can understand your point that some of those removed sections were more detailed than is necessary, I think your hypothetical example exaggerates the detail into which those sections went, as if to characterize the wording I added in those sections as being extremely and inappropriately detailed. Forgive me if I'm taking your hypothetical too literally, but if you're going to use it to point out what you see as problems with this material, it should be an accurate representation of the material in question.

Some of those sections did include names of people, organizations, and places involved- which, in retrospect, I recognize were unnecessary in many of those cases, but I included in the interest of summarizing the pertinent incidents. Others, like the Espanola case, serve to communicate the consequence that these products can potentially have- illustrating how a false scan has been shown to lead to violent arrests of falsely accused individuals. However, none of them went into such great detail as to describe the names of all parties involved and as detailed a description of the incident as you have here. Notice that the section about stalking read "Lee Nygaard stalked his ex-girlfriend," not "his ex-girlfriend, Jane Doe;" nor in any point in this article was a location mentioned in more exact terms than the name of a city. None included exact dates, either, as that is a practice I generally tend to avoid unless significant enough to warrant mention.

I'm not a perfect writer, and again, I understand your concerns and at least somewhat agree with the need to change them. But I stand by the good faith of my language in those sections and do not appreciate their hyperbolic mischaracterization. 42-BRT (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not questioned your good faith, but who is "Lee Nygaard"? He is not a notable person, not a Flock Safety person (and even if he was one, we probably wouldn't identify him by name in an article unless he was the CEO or a high-level executive). WP:BLP covers all living persons named anywhere in Wikipedia, whether in an article about them or as a passing mention with respect to another topic. My Streamlight hypothetical was intended to illustrate all the ways that a description can go wrong, but the point remains the same. Where a product is used by a tool with which bad people do bad things (and there is no end to the products for which this can be said), that generally merits a relatively minimal mention. A better example than a flashlight would be a handgun. There are certain companies that market their handguns to police, specifically touting features which make those guns the deadlier choice for police to use. We don't add details about specific police-involved shootings using those guns to their articles, even if the instance is of a police officer shooting their girlfriend, or shooting a woman to prevent her from getting a legal abortion. BD2412 T 02:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again- those cases would not be discussed under the specific model of weapon unless the unique features of that weapon enabled them, as I have argued is the case with Flock Safety. You've yet to convincingly refute that.

Lee Nygaard was the chief of police in Sedgwick, Kansas, who was convicted of using a Flock system to stalk his girlfriend. His name was mentioned in the text that you removed. 42-BRT (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I ask who is "Lee Nygaard"?, I mean, who is he in the sense of Wikipedia BLP policy. Chief of police of a town in Kansas is not an office that qualifies a subject as notable for mention in Wikipedia. He should not be named in this article any more than he should be named in the article on Stalking or the article on Sedgwick, Kansas. With respect to discussing the potential misuses of the unique features of the technology, the article as it now stands is comparatively extensive in capturing the broad critique, including an entire paragraph quoted from the ACLU on the matter. The article currently states, for example, that In 2024, Cyrus Farivar, writing for Forbes, questioned a statistic crediting Flock Safety's technology with an 80% reduction in residential burglaries in San Marino, California in early 2021 compared to the same period in 2020, with Farivar's piece asserting that burglaries actually slightly increased, and that serious crimes remained nearly unchanged. Farivar further questioned Flock Safety's claims in Fort Worth, Dayton, and Lexington. The article currently states Flock's surveillance technology is often criticized for its broadening of public surveillance, and lead to a chilling effect on civil liberties, as described by privacy experts and organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union; and that In March 2022, the American Civil Liberties Union released a report criticizing Flock Safety's business model and products; and that In June 2024, a judge in the Norfolk, Virginia, Circuit Court ruled that collecting location data from the city's 172 Flock ALPRs constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case when collected without a warrant. The ruling likened ALPR location databases to tracking devices, whose use by police was previously found unconstitutional without a warrant in United States v. Jones. Later, in October 2024, the Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the Norfolk Police Department on behalf of two local residents, similarly asserting that the department's use of Flock ALPRs constitutes illegal surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That level of detail of criticism is appropriate, and is consistent with the proportion of criticism that is directed towards a great many companies that market products about which critiques are raised. In fact, Wikipedia:Criticism counsels that criticism sections should generally be avoided in articles altogether. This is a rare instance where (and I think we all agree on this) the existence of such a section is warranted. In this case, the section that exists is sufficient to capture criticism, and responses to it, at an appropriately high level. BD2412 T 03:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be restricted to one or two paragraphs? Each of these are all notable and due stories backed up by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. And more are developing all the time.

WP:CSECTION talks about avoiding sections and articles dedicated solely to criticism. It doesn't say criticism itself should be removed. The answer is clearly to incorporate it into a neutral section incorporating the critical stories with other neutral stories, perhaps the ones in /* Corporate history */. Just call it "history".

Removing the section from the article, even just to move it to the talk page without a discussion on the talk page or a warning on the article page, gives the appearance of WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:REMOVAL, which requires adequate explanation brought about through WP:CONSENSUS. Kire1975 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism is well-presented in the article. We do not, however, introduce details of misuse by individuals who are not employed by the subject company, for exactly the same reason that even though Dodge Charger notes that a version of the vehicle is used by police, it does not list instances where police officers caused damage recklessly driving a Charger, or used their police vehicle to stalk an ex. BD2412 T 00:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say 'we do not', how and where was consensus found on that question? Did it account or the fact that the page for AR-15–style rifle has a section that lists instances of misuse? Kire1975 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Otherwise, we will have a huge list of when it has been effective and a huge list of misuses. I believe similar analogies have been used regarding flashlights. The AR-15 example is not even close as there are tons of sources, studies, etc. about the AR-15 and its relation to deaths. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 How long does the list have to be to include articles about misuse here? Kire1975 (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there actually "articles about misuse" at all? With respect to "misuse" of AR-15-style rifles, Wikipedia in fact has separate articles on specific events including the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Pulse nightclub shooting, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, the Crandon shooting, the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, and the Port Arthur massacre. There are no Wikipedia articles on the specified stalking incidents, nor would there be. I would note also that the kinds of specific events listed in the article AR-15–style rifle are not mentioned in the Colt's Manufacturing Company article, illustrating the distinction between the category of product (here, ALPRs), and a specific commercial entity. BD2412 T 23:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with a lot of the recent edits by user BD2412 T to this article, which I believe equate to whitewashing a heavily controversial company involved in a heavily controversial business. I'll start at the top (literally) and work my way down.

I maintain that the recently added (and restored) mention of how Flock's branding is "child-friendly" and uses motifs of watchfulness and community safety is heavily biased in the company's favor, and I question why it is necessary to include at all. Mentioning so prominently why this company contrasts from competitors - and especially, as this user's writing has done, definitely implying that it is better than said competitors' practices, reads like promotion of the company. In any case, this factoid about Flock's marketing is not nearly noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in a summarizing lead as this user has done. At best, it should be included further down the article in a heading about the company's business model. 42-BRT (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you are getting that out of an accurate and sourced description of a company's marketing. The sentence as it appears in the article now says, "The company's branding contrasts with competitors by using bright colors, child-friendly imagery, and a marketing focus on community security, while naming its products after birds, assertedly to reinforce the theme of watchfulness". This is summarized from a book by Jill Walker Rettberg, a university professor of digital culture, and therefore an expert in the field, in Rettberg, Jill Walker (September 11, 2023). Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World. John Wiley & Sons. p. 45-46 – via Google Books.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link), where she states:

Flock's marketing strategy is to domesticate surveillance technology. While most of their competitors target law enforcement, Flock caters to a mixed market of families and police departments and emphasizes how ALPRs protect families and children. Comparing the websites and promotional material of these companies shows this difference starkly. Companies aimed more at government and law enforcement, such as Vigilant or Rektor, use dark blues and corporate, serious style, whereas Flock uses brightly colored photos of children, big headings and logos in green and purple...

Stating the fact that Flock's marketing has the attributes that it has is merely reporting a fact as set forth in the source. Readers are intelligent enough to understand that an accurate description of a company's marketing strategy is not an endorsement of the company. This frankly no different from our article on McDonald's noting that the company "sought to include more healthy choices in its menu, announcing in May 2008 that, in the United States and Canada, it has switched to using cooking oil that contains no trans fats for its french fries, and canola-based oil with corn and soy oils, for its baked items", which obviously is not an endorsement of McDonald's as health food. BD2412 T 01:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about why it's important to mention the difference in Flock's marketing, but that still does not justify the line's inclusion in the introduction to the article. Like I said, those specific details of their marketing strategy would be better discussed further down the article in a more in-depth discussion of their business model than would be appropriate in an article lead. 42-BRT (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The McDonald's line you mention is included in that article in the manner I described. 42-BRT (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not greatly averse to moving that line lower in the article. I do think that it is a key aspect of how the company positions itself. There are a lot of security camera products in the market, and this company seeks to distinguish itself from competitors by focusing on selling to communities more than to law enforcement, and using imagery reflecting this strategy. I could see moving the existing line to the body and leaving something shorter in the lede to the effect that "The company's marketing contrasts with competitors through color and naming schemes that reflect its marketing focus". BD2412 T 01:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 use of these cameras in immigration enforcement and the enforcement are new and novel uses of these products. To use your maglite example, this would be in my mind more akin to their suddenly being a situation where police officers all of a sudden start getting a bunch of complaints that they're being used in abuse of force incidents. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The privacy concerns are already summed up, as it the efficacy. We don't follow by a list of items the prove the point. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way I was thinking of it was more chronological i.e. someone voices a concern, then were watching to see if that concern comes to fruition.

Also, would you be satisfied by some sort of statement about how the network is advertised to become more efficient at scale? Re: the to all from the investors, because I do think that's an important point that people might not come up with on their own from reading other materials.

Perhaps a new section is created to talk about notable uses of the product? Could be good to pull random anecdotal evidence out of the efficacy section, which honestly feels a bit like advertising, at the same time, leaving it more open for statistical type talk. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quote about it going to scale sounds more promotional than anything. As far as your recommendation about "watching to see," that is not what Wikipedia does. We write based on the sources, keeping in mind WP:NPOV and other guidelines and policies, one of which I cited above. As far as creating more on efficacy, it would violate the same guideline as adding detailed incidents of privacy concerns. Sure, we could add this, this, this, this and dozens of others, but why? This page then becomes a list of incidents, one which details how it has helped and one that details its privacy concerns. I will repeat it again....these are already summed up. In fact, we need to remove a lot of the detailed ones still on the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, things like this should be mentioned on the appropriate Wikipedia page should one exist.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I self reverted your removal but then removed the extra I was talking about as you seemed to only do what you felt necessary and not everything discussed above. I also rewrote the lead for NPOV. I would suggest discussing any additions here on the talk page as anything believed to be POV pushing could be removed and we will be right back here. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a compromise could be be made where the use by federal agencies, such as ICE, is mentioned in the business model section? Because currently I believe it only makes reference to use by private orgs and local police, and use by federal agencies could be seen as an expansion of the business model. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, propose the changes. State exactly what you feel should be added. You can post it below and we can discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming contentious. I would suggest developing a process for coming to agreements on the talk page before making changes in the article text (other than typo fixing and the like), as we do for contentious topics. BD2412 T 16:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I have reverted your removal of the longer-standing text in the article. We need to have a baseline for discussion that does not involve the more recent content additions or subtractions. BD2412 T 20:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have no issue with restoring where it was prior to it becoming a sounding board. I think we need to keep this within NPOV guidelines and not have it become an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of incidents (good and bad) where the devices have been used. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some further research and found a ton of stuff about instances of use for immigration enforcement that are outside of that one referenced article that made it sound like it was breaking news. It will take me a moment to read them fully and come up with some synopsis that does them justice.

I'll post what I come up with. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you do not seem to want to follow a process. The entire line about 404 Media needs removed but I have not done so in hopes you would engage in constructive discussion after BD2412's restoration to status quo. Do you have an argument on how - "In May 2024, it was reported by 404 Media that Flock data had been queried for use in immigration enforcement" - that statement meets inclusion or why you feel it necessary to create a separate heading for that sentence? It is still on you to get consensus for it but I have not removed it at the moment, again in hopes of engagement in construction discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage itself is notable with it being referenced in multiple reports Arizona police departments say ICE is not using their license plate scannersICE illegally gains informal access to nationwide license plate camera networkICE Expands Nationwide Surveillance Infrastructure for Mass Deportations Flock Safety defends local control as ICE reportedly uses ALPR data without direct agreement setting off concern at the state local level about how it should be handled Arizona police departments say ICE is not using their license plate scanners Milwaukee PD accessed Illinois Flock cameras for classified investigation • Wisconsin ExaminerMountlake Terrace approves Flock camera system after public pushback

It is not a theoretical event as would be suggested by the title of section -- it is reported event. Saying that discussion of a theocraticals frees us from ever talking about realized due instances or due patterns is a difficult position to defend.

With the degree of reference the coverage, which is verifiable, is getting, in combination with it not being mentioned anywhere else in the article can be argued to be WP:NOTCENSORED unless we are accepting your argument that discussion of hypothetical abuses frees us from summarizing realized events.

Additionally, you can argue NPOV by saying that keeping it a section regarding ethical concerns colors the actions as being inherently bad. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an AI generated response as if you are arguing for inclusion, why would you say that I could "argue NPOV by saying that keeping it a section regarding ethical concerns.....?" I in fact agree that keeping it in a section would attempt to paint Flock Safety as the actor doing the conduct. This is exactly why this sentence needs removed altogether as it is not neutral and tries to make Flock Safety seem responsible for the actions of others. Again, use the flashlight example provided by BD2412 previously. Flock Safety did not do these searches and Flock Safety is not ICE and Flock Safety is not using itself to do these actions. Unless you have a good argument for inclusion, I am going to remove it and the WP:ONUS would then be on you for consensus. I would welcome a RfC as there is still a lot of information included that violations INDISCRIMINATE. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through indiscriminate and I don't see anything that I see that suggests that it couldn't be included -- it's not a list and at the very least it seems to fall under the thoughtful exemption. I would agree if, say, we where listing every police department or state that had made requests, but were not. I also don't know if a policy that would make it so they have to be directly responsible for everything on their page so long as you're not falsely attributing blame, which I'm not arguing for. If you see the last change I made, I clearly state that the federal government does not have a contract with them and it's being done as a favor by local PD's and such.

Also, if you're saying it can't be on this page, that begs the question of where you do think it should be included.

I object to the accusations of me using AI here wp: civility

If you could identify the portion of indiscriminate you're concerned with, I would appreciate it. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The part about it not being a list of things that happened, particularly, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia," where it also points to encyclopedia content that says, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not exhaustive."--CNMall41 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we're calling anything anything that the company itself did not do, we would remove the concerns section in its entirety because it is not an action of the company. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should probably be removed in its entirety since it is not the actions of the company itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the company itself is now blocking sharing from a few states. This should be included, with context. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 care to way in on this? I've done my scouring and can't find any policy reason to support this line of thinking, and the article is incomplete over this. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CANVASS. If you ping one, please ping all. Thankfully, this is on my watchlist. Can you point to what you are referring to? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SprinklerLover12: I will be able to look at this in greater depth tomorrow. What do you mean by "the company itself is now blocking sharing from a few states"? Is there a source for this? BD2412 T 18:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CEO is beginning to respond to criticism. See his statement on the company website with a ton of helpful information.

@CNMall41 I was replying to you. You would automatically get a notification. There would be no reason to ping you. Please stop trying to manufacture reasons to criticize me re: biting and civility. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how it works. Just because you reply on a thread does not mean someone gets a notification. If that is what you believed at the time I do understand why you didn't ping. As far as the content, you still have not proposed what you want added. There is no way to discuss anything per WP:ONUS when content has not been proposed/presented.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the actual substance of these reports appears to be that the subject's technology was not used to enforce an abortion ban, which the language previously in the article would imply, but rather to locate a runaway (who incidentally had recently had an abortion) at the request of her family. While we could explain all of this in the article, it is a bit outside the scope. BD2412 T 19:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I don't really super care about the abortion part seeing as it's a singular instance, but there is a certainly a whole section worth of materials about use by federal agencies, the responses of municipal governments, and the response of the company to criticism. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose in terms of language to add to the article? BD2412 T 17:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, I don't have time to write it up today, but when I do it would go something like the outline below. .

Use by federal agencies and response

• Blurb about the 404 Media Coverage, similar to what will be found in edit logs, regarding the pattern of use.
• Summarization of the CEO's response

Civic response to Flock Safety by govern

• Broad summarization of community efforts to prevent the adoption of Flock Safety and cancel contracts with possible mentions of notable efforts.
• Talk about the response by individual states that have made moves to prevent entities outside their state from accessing Flock Data.

I would also remove the criticism section as it seems redundant if you summarize news coverage and also because of the NPOV issue. I also think that the general automatic license plate reader page does a good job of talking about criticisms and I don't see value in repeating it. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a more substantial rewrite of various sections of the article, then? We could create a draft on a subpage of this talk page and work out details there. BD2412 T 16:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was eluding too in the section below. Looks like our edits crossed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like the efficacy section is now missing critical coverage, which feels inappropriate if we're going to go ahead and include mention of the marketing statistics. Studies Show Flock’s ALPRs Reduce Crime… So Long As Flock Controls The Inputs And The Methodology Can License Plate Readers Really Reduce Crime? SprinklerLover12 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the previous section, there needs to be a process. Luckily, there is one. It is called WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. Feel free to propose the edits for discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur fully with SprinklerLover12. 42-BRT (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how seriously we should treat a source which references "the biggest assholes in the private sector: homeowners associations and gated communities". BD2412 T 00:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wired magazine itself is a very serious source, and Tech Dirt is also big news on the tech space. A taste of editorializing doesn't change that. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the removal of the concerns section altogether? I think that would be appropriate to meet WP:NPOV.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree with that, but I do think that we should come to a consensus version of content, wording, and sources to include in such a section. BD2412 T 19:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 @BD2412

I don't know if you saw my reply, but I'm supportive of removing the criticism section as it seems like it's no longer timely, many of the concerns have been realized, and best practice is to bake in criticisms to other sections. I do insist on talking about the 404 reporting and its associated civic responses in a way that isn't overly simplified yet not a list. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was being facetious which in hindsight, was not very appropriate so I apologize. I honestly think the entire page is a mess and can use a rewrite but if you can propose the wording you want implemented and where I think we can get closer to something that is more NPOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your apology. I will try and come up with a rewrite for the efficacy section and section on use by federal agencies and the associated response in the next week and a half or so, unless you beat me to it. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems like that material is most appropriate for the general automatic licence plate reader article. SprinklerLover12 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, to clarify for @CNMall41, which section are you in agreement with? SprinklerLover12 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to go through the page line by line, reference by reference to give you that answer. Wikipedia works by consensus. Right now, outside of what is disputed here, is considered consensus. As you are the one who is wanting disputed content changed, it would be WP:ONUS on you to propose those changes. I can take time to go through the page but not at this very minute. In the meantime, feel free to make your proposed wording change for disputed items. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does the assertion "can share data with police departments and can be integrated into predictive policing platforms like Palantir." have to do with anything this company does, or intends to do? This is irrelevant ad copy and far from neutral. 2607:FEA8:9564:9C00:60BC:CB6D:748C:46FF (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sharing of data is a primary concern of privacy advocates and should remain in lead. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 02:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping this in the lede. BD2412 T 03:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to raise a concern about the current balance of content in this article.

At present, the article retains individual examples of efficacy (cases where Flock Safety cameras helped solve crimes or recover vehicles) but removes individual examples of misuse (cases where the same technology was abused, led to wrongful arrests, or raised civil liberties concerns). This creates an asymmetric treatment of evidence. Both are anecdotal, yet only the positive anecdotes remain.

This is not consistent with WP:DUE / WP:UNDUE or with WP:NPOV.

Further to the point, misuse is not irrelevant or tertiary. On the contrary, reliable secondary sources—journalistic investigations, civil liberties groups, and watchdogs—have consistently identified misuse and privacy risks as central issues with ALPR and Flock Safety. These concerns are not a “weaponized flashlight” (a Maglite) but rather more akin to a “gun without a safety”: the very core of the public debate about the technology.

If specific cases of solved crimes are encyclopedic enough to illustrate efficacy, then specific cases of misuse are equally encyclopedic in illustrating risk.

WP:DUE requires that we apply the same standard to both. If one side’s anecdotes are considered undue and trimmed, then both sides should be treated the same way, and only general secondary-source commentary about benefits and risks should remain. Conversely, if individual examples are acceptable for efficacy, they are equally acceptable for misuse. Selectively keeping one while removing the other creates bias in the article and tilts the evidence calculus in favor of the company.

I propose that we restore representative misuse examples alongside the efficacy anecdotes, sourced to reliable publications. If consensus is instead that individual examples are undue in principle, then both categories should be removed and replaced with summary statements reflecting what secondary sources report. Either approach would restore balance and ensure the article reflects the weight of coverage in reliable sources, rather than privileging one kind of anecdote over the other. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: I think the fundamental principal is indeed be that individual cases of use are undue in principle. I agree that this applies whether the anecdote is positive of negative. This brings to mind claims about vaccines, by way of comparison, and we have seen how quick antivaxxers are to pick some anecdotal outlier adverse reaction and build a narrative around it. Obviously, any law enforcement system that can be accessed can hypothetically be misused (and this has always been an issue), but we are not a reporter of individual instances. BD2412 T 00:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I’d like to share this here to discuss additions to this section after an edit of mine was reverted. The situations I initially mentioned include one where a Texas woman was searched using a nationwide database, which turned out to be illegal because some states, like Illinois, deem federal access to ALPR databases unlawful. The other situation pertains to the conflict with Flock in Illinois including reinstallation of security cameras after being told to be terminated. I believe the reversion was due needing discussion on wording and whether the case is trivial or not:

In another incident later in May 2025, court documents uncovered that an officer from Johnson County, Texas accessed the nationwide Flock license plate database of 80,000 cameras to locate a woman to prosecute her for a self-abortion with a pill she had done. The access to nationwide database is controversial because this included Illinois’s database. This has been illegal in that state since 2023, prohibiting automatic license reader data from being shared with the state for the purpose of penalizing, investigating or tracking a person seeking abortion care or criminalizing a person’s immigration status. The sheriff claimed it was done as a missing person’s report, but the court documents revealed it was for a death investigation of the fetus. The sheriff’s office reported that local family called and was concerned due to the amount of blood loss from the self-administered abortion pill, however, the court documents stated that the only concerned family member referenced was the partner. According to the woman, this partner abused her and threatened her with a gun on the day she took the pill. Contrary to what the court documents reveal, Flock and the sheriff’s office maintain the story was misleading and that it was over concern over her welfare.^[1][2]

In August 2025, an audit was conducted by the Illinois state secretary in Evanston due to concerns with safeguarding of data and accessibility of data by federal immigration agents by Flock’s own admission. The cameras were installed during a pilot program from a contract years prior. The 19 cameras were deactivated and due for termination by September 26, 2025 after a conclusion that Flock violated state privacy laws about sharing Illinois data with federal immigration agents.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}

In September 8th, most of cameras were removed, but were reinstalled again in locations near to the original ones, despite not obtaining authorization from the city. There was also allegations raised that despite the city announcing on August 26 that the cameras would no longer be collecting data, data listed on the Flock’s transparency portal show that vehicles were still being detected.^[8][9] Fishestablishment (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general issue is that we don't relay isolated incidences, as they are not really about the company, which is the subject of the article (in the same way that the Hyundai Elantra article contains no reference to the 2022 University of Idaho murders, even though such a vehicle was pivotal to the case). Also, reference to a statute about ALPRs generally is an example of something that belongs in an article on ALPRs generally. BD2412 T 02:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The incident in Illinois is connected to the company, as they received directives to remove the cameras but chose to reinstall them. This was done by Flock Safety themselves.

As for the abortion case, the company actively denied the allegations and engaged with the journalists who uncovered them. This indicates a direct response to the situation, despite court evidence showing otherwise. This does seem significant to include here.

The Hyundai case example does not seem comparable to this one. The company didn't respond nor deny information that came up regarding the case. Fishestablishment (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This being an encyclopedia article as opposed to a legal trial or comparable fact-finding investigative process, there is no principle that an entity responding to a non-notable assertion opens the door to inclusion of non-notable content in the article. I would note that as a baseline example of this, we do not permit inclusion of legal filings as primary source documents, whether or not the filings are met with a counterfiling from the other party. As for the removal and reinstallation of cameras, I could see having a line to the effect of "In one instance, the company was reported to have reinstalled cameras in a municipality after being ordered to remove their cameras", but there is not much more to say that would not be disproportionate to the thousands of municipalities that have contracted for the installation of Flock cameras without such an incident arising. BD2412 T 03:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, are we in agreement that at the most including:

"In one instance, the company was reported to have reinstalled cameras in a municipality after being ordered to remove their cameras" and that the issue of conflicting with state laws though would go into the ALPR page? Fishestablishment (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to be careful about here, as stated previously, is creating an indiscriminate list of things people like/hate about Flock. It is going to be controversial but Wikipedia is not here to serve as a sounding board to either promote the company or act like a complaint forum. Advise to stick to incidents where Flock was directly involved. Simply using their cameras or them making a public comment about something does not mean they are involved. With that in mind, a sentence about the re-installation of cameras is potentially worthy of inclusion if it can be written from a NPOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will include the re-installation part on this page then. I think from what I understand, the abortion case is more appropriate on the legalities of ALPR usage, rather than on this company's page Fishestablishment (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this reflects the consensus of this discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So many "isolated incidents" though. I'm beginning to think there might be enough for a separate "list" page. Kire1975 (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple cities that cancelled the contracts, but it was more a general thing which I believe was summarized in some articles awhile back. These can be briefly mentioned since not all of these reasons for cancelling the contracts were particularly noteworthy, but a general disagreement with privacy overreach. This is already summarized in the articles mentioned and can be briefly mentioned.

I think if the isolated incidents do involve something major, such as unauthorized installation or continuous recording, despite supposedly being deactivated would be major enough given these are usually documented with official city statements and several news sources. This is because this now enters legal issues between cities and the company, rather than just general concerns.

How were you thinking of organizing said page? Fishestablishment (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

upon further reading into recent articles involving Flock Safety, it seems a list page is worth considering. Recent developments involve several other cases of unauthorized installation of cameras in other cities. Seems like a notable pattern with the company. We would have to be careful not to list general cancellations of contracts though as previously mentioned. Fishestablishment (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are welcome to present anything you feel deserves inclusion, but not sure how a separate page could be justified when there hasn't been a case made for inclusion on this page. Would be a needless WP:CFORK of unencyclopedic information. I hear our argument and understand your contention, but you not laid out any policy based reasoning for inclusion so there is no consensus at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to start turning into WP:INDISCRIMINATE if we list contract cancellations one by one. It is a company, it has plenty. It also has plenty of new contracts and installations which also do not needed to be added individually. At this point, I think we need to summarize a single paragraph to include that cameras have been removed in various locations but we do not need to have every incident spelled out, just like we don't need to spell out each contract or installation in its favor. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that is not what the article and segment itself says. This is not a cancellation of a contract as you stated, but an installation of cameras without city permission. Not the same. Fishestablishment (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INDISCRIMINATE, NPOV, and NOTEVERYTHING still applies. Wikipedia is not a place to keep lists of each and everything about a company. You will need consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreements. Noteworthy things do go here though. An entire city cancelling a contract over unauthorized installation is not the same as listing all the contracts that are cancelled nationwide.

An entire city evidencing this breach of trust that led to the cancellation was published on their own official government site, including several credible media outlets is noteworthy, unless you are arguing an entire city's concerns are meaningless.

I do understand your concerns though. But if you read this entire section on the page, each incident listed is significantly different in context and notable incidents. They are not contract cancellations as you initially stated. Fishestablishment (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would frankly say that this line of thought rather vastly underestimates the commonality of municipalities having disputes with companies. "An entire city cancelling a contract" usually actually means a handful of municipal executives, unless there was some sort of petition and referendum process in which city voters went to the polls and voted to oust the contractor. As an example, we would not include the Jackson, Mississippi lawsuit against Siemens where the city sued for nearly half a billion dollars over a botched water meter contract.^[10] BD2412 T 00:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]