Vehicle Intelligence, Public Safety, and Privacy

The Flock Safety Controversy: What Happened?

Flock Safety operates more than 120,000 AI-powered license-plate cameras across the United States. Police use the network to identify suspects, recover stolen vehicles and investigate crimes. They also credit it with helping locate missing people.

A Washington Post investigation identified at least 50 officers charged or accused of misusing license-plate surveillance systems, including 46 cases involving Flock. Some allegedly tracked current or former romantic partners.

Investigations also found police searching Flock data on behalf of immigration authorities, raising concerns that the technology could be used to track undocumented immigrants. Flock maintains that ICE has no direct access to its platform.

The backlash has crossed party lines. Texas Governor Greg Abbott restricted state funding for Flock cameras, while Florida’s DeSantis administration ordered their removal from state roads. The Associated Press reported that more than 50 jurisdictions had canceled, suspended or rejected contracts, or deactivated cameras.

Locally, Mountain View discovered that Flock-enabled nationwide and statewide lookup settings allowed agencies to search data outside the city’s approved access rules. Its cameras were shut down February 2, and the City Council voted unanimously to terminate the contract February 24.

Flock’s CEO publicly apologized. The company announced stronger auditing and search-justification requirements, alongside a seven-day retention default for new law enforcement customers. Existing customers retain their current retention periods.

The Pink Koala Statement

Pink Koala develops vehicle intelligence technology, so we have a commercial stake in this debate. We also share the concerns about mass surveillance. A plate visible in public is one thing; a searchable history of people’s movements is another. We don’t want that society. Our clients and partners share these concerns, and we’re proud to work with people who take them seriously.

License-plate recognition has legitimate uses: opening parking gates for subscribers, checking trucks arriving at a logistics center, or managing campus parking. None requires a nationwide network. Police also benefit when cameras flag stolen vehicles or help find a missing person’s car.

In our hometown, Mountain View, an audit found Flock had enabled nationwide and statewide lookup features beyond the city’s approved sharing rules. The city shut off its cameras and terminated the contract. A written policy had not prevented unauthorized access.

Before deployment, we believe systems should have narrowly defined uses, short retention with automatic deletion, and no cross-agency sharing by default. Every search should identify the user and purpose; sensitive searches should need extra approval, emergency overrides should be reviewed, and independent audits and public reporting should expose misuse. These protections should be built into software.

California’s SB 34 already requires public ALPR privacy policies, access logs, and public comment before public-agency deployment. It also restricts sharing with federal and out-of-state agencies. Mountain View shows how hard these rules can be to enforce.

The balance between safety, convenience and privacy also matters online, where surveillance can be harder to see. Citizens deserve enough information to set the boundaries.

Technical capability is not permission to use it.

We should be able to build a world where the police are alerted when a stolen car drives by, without giving anyone the ability to secretly track their former partner.

That is the technology, and the governance, we believe is worth working toward.