‘Flock City PD:’ The Fake Flock-Owned ‘Police Department’ That Searched Real Cameras for Real People

Searches of your vehicle or activities, even for testing, are logged and may be shared with law enforcement, creating a record of protected speech and association.

Flock, a company providing automated license plate readers (ALPR) and surveillance technology, created a fake police department named ‘Flock City PD’ to conduct searches on its live camera network during sales demonstrations. Public records reveal that Flock employees used this fake department to search real cameras for various queries, including political symbols, crowd sizes, and specific vehicle types, in cities like Dunwoody, Georgia, and Bryan, Texas. Flock stated these searches were performed to test and validate the effectiveness of its system’s moderation tools and safeguards, demonstrating what types of queries the system should block or flag. Some searches, like those for "coexist bumper sticker" or "Star of David," triggered warning prompts, while others, such as for "crowd" or "person wearing scrubs," were allowed. The company maintains that these were not investigative searches by customer agencies but part of internal testing to ensure its policies prevent sensitive or First Amendment-implicating searches from yielding results. Following public outcry and reports of employees accessing sensitive locations, Flock stated that the ‘Flock City PD’ demo environment is now isolated and no longer searches on real cameras.

The use of a fabricated police department for testing sensitive search parameters highlights a critical tension between the need for companies to rigorously validate their surveillance technology and the public's right to privacy. Flock's admission that even searches potentially implicating First Amendment rights can be bypassed by users with a warning suggests that the company's safeguards may not be as robust as advertised, leaving open the possibility for misuse. This practice raises significant questions about the ethical boundaries of AI-driven surveillance and the extent to which private companies can access and catalog citizen activity under the guise of system development.

This incident underscores a broader concern about the expanding reach of private surveillance companies and their influence over law enforcement practices. As Flock and similar companies continue to develop increasingly sophisticated AI capabilities for their surveillance networks, the lack of transparent oversight and independent auditing becomes more pronounced. The potential for these tools to be used to monitor lawful activities, even if initially intended for testing, necessitates greater public scrutiny and stricter regulatory frameworks to protect civil liberties.