Flock Safety Defends ALPR Technology as Company Tightens Privacy Controls

August 16, 2026 - 17:37

Flock Safety says its automated license plate reader technology is built to give law enforcement objective vehicle evidence that helps solve crimes, while new company policies aim to limit how that data gets used. The statement comes as these systems, often called ALPRs, face growing questions from privacy advocates, lawmakers, and residents worried about surveillance, data storage, and police access.

Founded in 2017, Flock says its technology is now used in more than 5,000 cities. The company works with law enforcement agencies, neighborhoods, businesses, schools, and local officials. In a company factsheet, Flock describes its platform as using license plate recognition in two main ways. First, it can proactively alert officers when a vehicle linked to a stolen car, known suspect, or missing person is detected. Second, it can help investigators determine whether certain vehicles were present at a crime scene.

The company argues that vehicle information can be critical when no other evidence exists. It cites national statistics claiming that about half of violent crimes and more than 80 percent of property crimes go unsolved without key evidence like a license plate or vehicle description. Those figures come from the company itself, not from an independent review of its technology. Still, the core argument is simple: a vehicle can leave an investigative trail, and ALPR technology can help police follow it.

One of the company's most important points is what its cameras do not do. Flock says its systems do not use facial recognition. The cameras capture vehicle-specific information and generate alerts based on characteristics tied to the vehicle, not the identity of the driver or passengers. That means the system can show that a particular vehicle was seen at a particular place without identifying the person inside. This distinction matters in the broader surveillance debate. An ALPR camera is not a continuous video feed of everything in its view. It is designed to capture vehicle observations that can be searched later for legitimate investigative purposes.

Still, the technology creates searchable information about vehicles moving through public spaces, which is why questions about access, retention, and oversight remain relevant. Flock says its customers own and control the data collected by their cameras. According to the factsheet, the company does not sell customer data to third parties. That puts local agencies and governments at the center of the policy debate. A community considering an ALPR system has to decide not only whether the technology works but also what rules will govern its use. Who can search? What counts as a legitimate search? How long is data kept? Can another agency access it? What happens if an officer misuses the system?

Flock says its system is designed to create an audit trail for every search. Each user must enter a search reason or case number before searching, and that information is preserved. The goal is accountability. That safeguard does not prevent every possible misuse, but it creates a record that can be reviewed when questions arise. The company has also announced additional controls meant to identify unusual user behavior and, in some cases, automatically suspend access pending review.

Data retention is another area of change. Flock historically defaulted to deleting LPR data after 30 days on a rolling basis. More recently, the company announced a move toward a seven-day default retention period. Investigators can preserve specific information when it becomes relevant evidence in an active case. The shorter window addresses a central concern from privacy advocates: how long information about vehicles belonging to people who are not suspected of crimes should remain searchable. The basic idea is that information not needed should not stay available indefinitely.

Security is also part of the equation. Flock says its data is stored in Amazon Web Services cloud infrastructure and encrypted end-to-end. Cybersecurity matters because a database of vehicle observations would be valuable if improperly accessed. The company says it is strengthening its cybersecurity program and has brought in outside experts to review its systems. For local governments, that means cybersecurity should be part of the procurement and oversight conversation rather than an afterthought.

The debate has local relevance because Flock cameras are already in use in Western North Carolina. The Rutherford County Sheriff's Office uses Flock cameras as part of its investigative tools. Open-source public records reviewed for this report indicate that searches have been tied to a range of investigations, including murder and drug cases. The existence of those searches does not mean an individual whose vehicle appears in the system is suspected of a crime. An ALPR camera can capture vehicles belonging to people simply driving through an area. That is exactly why retention and search controls matter.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the ALPR debate. Supporters say the technology can help police locate stolen vehicles, find missing people, identify vehicles tied to violent crimes, and generate leads that might otherwise be unavailable. Privacy advocates argue that a large network of cameras can create an extensive record of where vehicles have been observed, and improper access could turn a public-safety tool into a surveillance tool. Both points can be true. The existence of privacy concerns does not mean the technology has no public safety value. And the existence of