Flock to shape U.S. privacy law around company policies

Flock, a video surveillance company, is working to build privacy legislation in the United States based on the company's policies. An emerging license-plate-reading camera company, Flock has faced intense scrutiny from lawmakers and the public in recent years over its tactics to monitor law enforcement and public safety incidents. However, representatives for the company said Flock has kept these privacy concerns at the forefront of its business model. Dan Haley, chief legal officer at Flock, said surveillance technology is not new for deterring public safety incidents. However, he said Flock is seeking to pioneer the guardrails with which the technology is used. The U.S. does not have a single, comprehensive uniform privacy law for Flock and companies like it to follow, Haley said. However, he said Flock is working to have the company policies serve as the basis of future privacy law, including data audits and retention rates. "When you have built your technology to comply with laws that don't exist yet, it is absolutely in your interest competitively to have the rules require it because you have a head start," Haley said. "But I like to think of it as a noble head start." He pointed to Flock's policy of creating a permanent record anytime license plate images are collected. "If you abuse it, the evidence of that abuse goes right there in the audit log and it's a public record," Haley said. Haley also pointed to Flock's policy that only holds data for 30 days and allows communities to set specific defaults. Recently, the policy changed to allow only seven days of data holding after increased controversy. The policy change follows several adjustments the camera company is attempting after intense public scrutiny. Flock brought in independent security firm Bishop Fox for a review of its products and capabilities, The Center Square previously reported. The report is expected to be released next month. Haley also said Flock adheres to a strict policy where the company's data can only be used if an officer reasonably suspects a crime has been committed. "99.99% of the images taken are deleted automatically and permanently, never having been viewed by a single human being," Haley said. Recently, Flock implemented an automated review of its captured data. He said the system will automatically flag certain suspicious behavior for further analysis. Over the last few weeks, officers across the country have been fired for an alleged misuse of Flock cameras following review. Haley acknowledged that Flock can be misused but equated it to controversy over other tools used by law enforcement. In South Carolina, Officer Ellie Anna Hammond was fired after using the Flock camera technology to track the license plate of a previous love interest, according to documents. "If you think about all the tools that we give law enforcement, any one of them can be abused," Haley said. "Very few of them create a record of that abuse and hold people accountable." He pointed to Flock's ability to solve criminal cases, rescue kidnapped individuals and provide assistance to law enforcement as a case for its inclusion in the landscape. Haley pointed to a Flock report that showed more than 10,000 missing individuals were returned safely with assistance from Flock cameras in 2025. West Virginia State Delegate Tristan Leavitt voiced concerns over the risks of a breach in Flock's database in an interview with The Center Square. "There are obviously concerns about these cameras from really across the political spectrum," Leavitt said. "And so as lawmakers trying to decide what level of involvement the state legislature should have, it's very difficult if you are not getting straight information directly from Flock themselves." Haley called on members of the public and lawmakers to educate themselves on the legal boundaries of surveillance technology and how the Fourth Amendment protects Flock's activities. He said the recent visibility of Flock cameras in public spaces have spurred additional public fury toward the technology. "Often very smart people, because they're proceeding from a core set of misunderstandings of what the technology is and what it does, they come to the conversation with a whole ton of established positions," Haley said. "We have not done a good enough job educating people."