Migrating from Flock [DISCONTINUED]: A Step-by-Step Guide

Flock [DISCONTINUED]: What Happened and Where to Go Next

2024–2025: Investigations and reporting (notably by EFF and local outlets) revealed widespread, often unchecked searches and data-sharing practices across Flock’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) network. Reports documented searches tied to protests, discriminatory queries, and cross-jurisdictional access that appeared to violate state limits.
Late 2025–early 2026: Multiple municipalities paused or terminated contracts after audit findings and public pressure; some state and federal inquiries followed. Flock issued statements defending compliance options and claiming customers control sharing settings.
Result: Significant loss of municipal customers and increased regulatory, legal, and public-safety scrutiny that led many jurisdictions to discontinue or suspend use of Flock systems.

Unrestricted access: Nationwide lookup/convoy features allowed agencies broad searches across other jurisdictions’ data.
Policy gaps vs. practice: Contracts and technical settings sometimes enabled access inconsistent with state privacy laws or local policies.
Abuse potential: Audit logs showed searches tied to protests, vulnerable groups, and ethnic targeting.
Transparency & oversight: Insufficient auditing, weak access controls, and unclear accountability for third‑party or federal access.
Public trust loss: Community backlash over civil‑liberties risks drove contract cancellations.

Take cameras/data offline or suspend access until policy and technical controls are verified.
Export and preserve logs/data (for continuity and legal needs) following your retention rules.
Audit access logs (who searched what, when, and from where) and document any suspected misuse.
Notify stakeholders (city council, legal counsel, community groups) and publish a brief public statement about actions taken.
Revoke or tighten sharing relationships and implement strict keyword/usage filters where supported.
Engage independent counsel or auditors to assess compliance with state law and contractual obligations.
Plan migration to alternatives or replacement systems (see options below).

Shortlist alternatives that prioritize local data ownership, fine-grained access controls, and audited search logs. Common approaches:
- On-prem or municipally hosted ALPR systems where the agency retains full control.
- Vendors with clear contractual prohibitions on national sharing and strong audit features.
- Non‑surveillance investments: targeted policing strategies, community policing, environmental design, lighting, and CCTV with strict access policies.
When evaluating replacements, require:
- Data ownership clauses (customer owns and controls data).
- Explicit sharing restrictions and revocation mechanisms.
- Comprehensive audit logs and third‑party auditing rights.
- Transparency reporting and community oversight provisions.
- Legal review for compliance with state privacy laws.

Contract templates requiring local ownership and no out‑of‑state/federal automatic sharing.
Mandatory, regular independent audits and public transparency reports.
Stronger access controls, keyword filters, and role-based permissions.
Clear retention limits and deletion policies.
Community oversight boards for surveillance procurement decisions.

EFF investigations and analysis (Dec 2025) on Flock ALPR use and abuses.
Local reporting on municipal contract terminations (e.g., Santa Cruz, early 2026).
Flock Safety’s public statements and LPR policy pages for vendor claims and mitigations.

If you want, I can draft:

A short public statement for your city/agency announcing suspension and next steps, or
A migration checklist tailored to your jurisdiction (assume mid‑sized U.S. city).