ATLANTA, Aug. 13 (Our Los Angeles) — Flock Safety, the company behind a large network of automated license-plate readers, announced new privacy controls after criticism over police access to its vehicle-location data. The changes include reducing the default data-retention period from 30 days to seven days and requiring law-enforcement users to give a reason and case code for each search.
The announcement comes as the Los Angeles Police Department pauses or declines to renew its agreement with Flock over concerns about data ownership, privacy, security and information sharing. LAPD has operated or operated 138 Flock cameras in Los Angeles, according to statements from LAPD Chief Information Officer Dean Gialamas and an inspector general report cited in coverage of the department’s decision.
What is Flock Safety?
Flock Safety sells cameras that capture license-plate numbers and other details about passing vehicles. Law-enforcement agencies can use the system to search for vehicles connected to an investigation and, depending on the rules governing a particular network, may be able to search data collected by other agencies.
The system can help police identify vehicles linked to reported crimes. Privacy advocates say it can also create records of where vehicles have traveled, raising concerns about surveillance of people who are not suspected of wrongdoing.
What is changing?
Flock said its standard retention period for vehicle-location data will drop from 30 days to seven days. The company said agencies could preserve information longer for active investigations through a new feature called “Evidence Mode.” Longer retention can also be governed by state or local policy, so the seven-day period is not an absolute limit in every jurisdiction.
Flock also said it would make its Audit Assistance system standard for every law-enforcement customer. The system is designed to identify unusual search activity and can lock a user out while an administrator reviews the activity.
Under the new policy, searches will require a stated reason and a case code. Flock said agencies could use an emergency override in situations such as a missing-child investigation.
The company also said local agencies would be able to decide which types of offenses outside agencies may use when searching their camera data. That control could allow an agency to block searches related to immigration enforcement.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley said the company’s goal was not to create a “dystopian future” and said, “The data shouldn’t be monetized.”
Why has Flock faced criticism?
The changes follow reporting and public criticism alleging that some police officers misused license-plate-reader systems, including searches involving romantic partners. The supplied reports do not identify the officers or provide the underlying records or outcomes of those cases.
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized Flock’s response, calling the reforms “a thinly veiled PR attempt” and saying they offered “largely hollow security promises.” The ACLU’s statement characterized the company’s changes as insufficient to address concerns about mass surveillance.
The debate is not limited to how long data is stored. It also involves who owns the data, who can search it, whether information can be shared with other agencies and whether the company can use it to train artificial-intelligence systems.
What does this mean for Los Angeles?
Los Angeles entered a memorandum of understanding with Flock in 2023. That memorandum expired in June 2026. In July, LAPD paused use or did not renew the agreement while the department considered its concerns about control of the data.
Gialamas said the contract was not being renewed because of “serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues,” especially privacy and the data collected by the cameras. He also said the central issue was establishing “very clear terms about who owns the data, what happens with the data once they collect it.”
LAPD and Flock were reported to be discussing a new agreement that would give the department ownership of camera data and related metadata. The proposed terms would also restrict Flock from distributing the data to another entity or using it to train artificial intelligence, according to reports based on statements from LAPD officials and the company.
The Los Angeles City Council and the Board of Police Commissioners are also involved in the local debate. In late May 2026, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado introduced a motion asking the police commission not to enter new Flock agreements or pilot programs.
The supplied information does not establish whether LAPD has resumed using the cameras or whether a new agreement has been finalized. It also does not provide a legal analysis of how California privacy rules would affect Flock’s seven-day default or the proposed LAPD contract.
Flock said it believed ongoing discussions with LAPD could resolve what the company called misconceptions behind the pause. The dispute reflects a broader question for police departments: how to use automated vehicle tracking in investigations while limiting access, retention and sharing of information about the public.
