Flock Introduces Audit Assistance Tool Amid Concerns Over Police Accountability

Washington DC, United States Aug 14, 2026 ALN: Surveillance technology startup Flock announced a series of new policies and tools on Thursday, claiming they will help curb abuse of its automated license plate camera reader systems and help keep its law enforcement customers accountable.

Flock is now recommending police departments retain data for seven days rather than the previous 30 days. Along with this change, the company introduced what it calls “Evidence Mode,” which can be turned on when customers need to retain data for longer periods in “exceptional cases” and requires a specific case number. Customers will also now be able to set limits on the data they share with other customers based on the type of offense that’s under investigation.

The company also highlighted a tool called “Audit Assistance” as one of the key changes. Flock launched the tool in April. Since then, Flock said “more than one-third” of its customers have turned it on, and the startup is now requiring all customers to enable it by the end of the year.

Flock said Audit Assistance “detects abnormal activity and flags it for Administrator review,” according to the blog post released Thursday. If that happens, the tool can automatically lock out users who have been flagged until an administrator intervenes. According to Flock, the tool has already helped customers spot and stop abuse.

Several executives have touted the capabilities of Audit Assistance. But despite its stated importance, Flock has not explained in detail how Audit Assistance actually works.

Some official comments provide some understanding of what Audit Assistance can do; it gets vague when trying to determine how it does it.

For instance, Flock’s head of trust and compliance Ashley Haber said in a video that the Audit Assistance can flag “what may look like an odd search history from a specific user,” helping customers understand how their users are operating the system. In another video, Flock co-founder Paige Todd said “Audit Assistance actually flags unusual patterns early. Think a user searching the same plate repetitively for more than 30 days.”

And Major Patrick Krieg of the Dunwoody, Georgia Police Department, a Flock customer, described the feature in a press release as “an algorithm that has notified us of any type of bias.”

Flock describes Audit Assistance as a feature that can “surface atypical activity early and review it quickly with a clear, documented workflow.”

What’s unclear — and has asked for answers about — is how this “algorithm” actually works, what data is it trained on, and if it was developed using a large language model. also asked what kind of patterns is it designed to surface and what exactly gets flagged as “abnormal activity”?

According to Flock, Audit Assistance is not based on [Machine Learning] or AI. The company told that “It is a data tool that flags atypical search patterns for further review. One example that would trigger a flag is if a user searches for the same plate using multiple different case codes, as this could potentially indicate abuse. A flag does not mean that it is definitely abuse — it only means it warrants further investigation.”

Numerous questions remain unanswered, however, including whether Flock has any statistics or data that shows how effective the tool is, what its false positive and false negative rates are, and if it has been audited by a third party?

Privacy experts and Flock critics are not impressed by Audit Assistance.

The American Civil Liberties Union senior policy counsel Chad Marlow wrote in response to Flock’s announcement that “there is no evidence that the tool works consistently” to address abuse.

“While dozens of officers have recently been arrested, fired, or otherwise disciplined for misusing Flock for personal reasons, Flock claims these arrests are proof its auditing tool works,” Marlow wrote. “However, unless we know the number of officers misusing the system, we cannot conclude if Flock and its auditing tools are catching 95% of violators or 5%. Flock needs to have its auditing tool analyzed by an independent evaluator to determine its actual effectiveness. Until then, we don’t know if the tool is a real security measure or just window dressing.”

Cooper Quintin, a security researcher and senior public interest technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told that it may not even matter whether Audit Assistance works.

“If it does work, law enforcement will figure out ways to get around it,” he said, adding that what matters in the end is whether abusers are caught and held accountable. “If there are no consequences for abuse and whoever [the tool] reports to is the same police agency that is doing the abuse, it’s just a fig leaf for Flock. The best way to ensure accountability is to pass laws constraining the use of this technology and requiring a warrant for its use.”

Rachel Levinson-Waldman, the director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, told that making Audit Assistance mandatory is a step in the right direction, and that “in theory” the tool is “a great idea.” But she also said the tool itself “needs to be audited” because there’s not enough information about how it works in practice.

Flock’s announcements come after years of reported incidents of its customers repeatedly abusing its technology. Earlier this week, three former Georgia sheriff’s deputies were arrested and accused of using Flock cameras to stalk people with whom they had a “personal relationship at the time,” as the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office said in a press release. In this case, Bibb County Sheriff David Davis specifically called out Flock’s new tool Audit Assistance for uncovering the misuse.

The conversation surrounding police accountability and the use of surveillance technology has been a growing concern in recent years, particularly as incidents of misuse have been reported across the country. Flock's introduction of new policies and tools comes at a time when many are calling for greater transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices. As cities and counties increasingly rely on technology to assist in policing, the potential for misuse becomes a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

The automated license plate readers (ALPRs) have been widely adopted by law enforcement agencies as a means to enhance public safety and improve efficiency in tracking vehicles involved in crimes. However, the technology has also raised serious concerns about privacy and civil liberties, as well as the potential for biased policing practices. Critics argue that the data collected can be misused for personal reasons, leading to serious violations of privacy and civil rights.

In response to these concerns, Flock's new policies aim to limit data retention and enhance oversight of how the technology is used. By reducing the data retention period from 30 days to seven days, Flock seeks to minimize the risk of misuse of data that is not essential for ongoing investigations. The introduction of Evidence Mode allows for flexibility in retaining data when justified, which could help address specific cases while still adhering to a more stringent overall data retention policy.

The requirement for police departments to enable Audit Assistance by the end of the year is another step towards increased accountability. By flagging abnormal activities, the tool aims to create a layer of oversight that can help prevent misuse of the system. However, the effectiveness of this tool remains a point of contention, as experts and advocates have called for more transparency regarding how it operates.

While Flock's initiatives may be seen as a positive step towards addressing the concerns surrounding police accountability and the use of surveillance technology, the skepticism from privacy advocates highlights the need for ongoing scrutiny and evaluation of these tools. The call for independent audits and evaluations of the effectiveness of Audit Assistance and similar tools is crucial in ensuring that they serve their intended purpose without compromising civil liberties.

As discussions continue regarding the balance between public safety and individual rights, it is essential for technology companies like Flock to work closely with law enforcement agencies and advocacy groups to develop solutions that enhance accountability while respecting the rights of citizens. The implications of the misuse of surveillance technology can have lasting effects on communities, and ensuring that there are robust mechanisms in place to prevent such abuses is vital for maintaining public trust in law enforcement.

In conclusion, while Flock's introduction of Audit Assistance and revised data retention policies may represent a move towards greater accountability in the use of surveillance technology, the effectiveness of these measures will ultimately depend on their implementation and oversight. The ongoing dialogue between technology providers, law enforcement, and civil liberties advocates will be critical in shaping the future of policing in an increasingly digital world.