Talk:Flock Safety

garrett langley

where's his page￶??? ~2026-64288-6 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Any editor is welcome to start a draft on any subject within the scope of the encyclopedia. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be prudent to first determine whether Mr. Langley has ever used any other names in the past through official name change records that may exist; in the case of uncerifiable records, any other reliable sources for discovery such as high school year books, interviews with formative peers who may have knowledge of the existence of any such relevant records or sources that remain undisturbed. Iota488 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, you're free to do that, but usually we start Wikipedia article with a draft based on sources found under the name of the subject, whose notability will most likely be reflected under their current name. It is highly unlikely that this subject became notable under a previous name and then changed it. BD2412 T 17:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I created a redirect for now. Not sure he is notable outside of founding Flock Safety. Maybe I am wrong though as I didn't dig too deep. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Privacy and misuse continued

@CNMall41

We have not finished the previous edit. Apologies for the delay.

Some cities have stopped working with Flock over the use of its data in immigration enforcement and for community privacy concerns, while others did so due to the company acting without the consent of the city.

This was the last edit proposed. Let us continue this from our previous thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flock_Safety#RE:_incidents_related_to_#Privacy_concerns,_potential_misuse_and_legal_issues

Fishestablishment (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

what was your disagreement with this edit again? Fishestablishment (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Fishestablishment:, the ping was not correct but I put this back on my watchlist thankfully. Give me a day or so as there are a lot of issues with content that was restored despite consensus. I want to get my head around everything and be able to respond to everything at once, including your request above. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I tried to follow the thread as accurately as I could and believe the proposal was to add your sentence along with the information about Forbes. I had no problem with your summary but objected to the Forbes which I see was re-added by another user without consensus. What I would be inclined to support is swapping your wording for the Forbes wording which needs removed per ONUS anyway. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity of this discussion thread, I will add that summary of that particular edit then so we can close this one and move onto that Forbes one. I will not include the Forbes part. We will have to open that Forbes part in a new discussion just so it is organized. If I have misunderstood, feel free to continue this discussion, but it seems we can close this one now since there is no objection with that summary. Apologies again for the long delay! Fishestablishment (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I am all caught up. Yes, it seems I misunderstood you last time, but I agree on the replacement of the Forbes part. I had to do a few edits because I think I mixed up which subsection I was in, but overall, I think we are done with this.

Fishestablishment (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0

So the reason why I removed the edit earlier (the one you restored again) was because the wording was not specific and did not capture the issues of the company. The discussion thread is a little long but this is why this was removed:

As of 2025, Flock is used by over 6,000 municipalities in the United States. Some cities have stopped working with Flock for a variety of reasons. The company had raised a total $950 million in venture funding, with a $7.5 billion valuation. Some state transportation and public safety agencies have accused Flock of installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission. In 2024, Forbes reported that Flock had installed hundreds of devices on public roads in multiple states without securing necessary permits. Other communities have expressed privacy concerns.

The parts I crossed out are the ones I am replacing because this is vague language. What happened as was discussed was that the company acted in ways without the consent of the city, which is more accurate than saying "stopped working with Flock for a variety of reasons:" For the part with the "Some state transportation and public safety...." the politico article summed it up well.

Also, as of that year, some cities have stopped working with Flock over the use of its data in immigration enforcement and for community privacy concerns, while others did so due to the company acting without the consent of the city.¹

1. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/30/license-plate-trackers-pushback-00670550

Let me know your thoughts since I think @CNMall41 was in disagreement with the original and supported for replacement of the Forbes part with this summary instead. Fishestablishment (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

So this is what I think would be the final edit as you can see on the page now:

As of 2025, Flock is used by over 6,000 municipalities in the United States. The company had raised a total $950 million in venture funding, with a $7.5 billion valuation. Also, in that same year, some cities have stopped working with Flock over the use of its data in immigration enforcement and for community privacy concerns, while others did so due to the company acting without the consent of the city.

The previous one was this:

As of 2025, Flock is used by over 6,000 municipalities in the United States. Some cities have stopped working with Flock for a variety of reasons. The company had raised a total $950 million in venture funding, with a $7.5 billion valuation. Some state transportation and public safety agencies have accused Flock of installing and operating their devices without obtaining required permission. In 2024, Forbes reported that Flock had installed hundreds of devices on public roads in multiple states without securing necessary permits. Other communities have expressed privacy concerns.

I believe CNMall was in disagreement with the "6,000 municipalities" detail, but I think it's fine to keep.

Fishestablishment (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 Fishestablishment (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The Forbes quote has been in disagreement and continues to get restored. I am removing again per ONUS and we can discuss but my previous contention remains. If consensus is established to include it then feel free to add it back. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

is there a separate discussion about this Forbes thing that I am missing out on? It's been awhile, though I think I am caught up. I am fine with replacing it with the current edit that we discussed, though I want to hear @Czarking0's thoughts too.

Fishestablishment (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It is in the section "Controversy section moved to talk page for discussion" above. February and March I believe. Have not had the appetite to come back and look over everything due to the lack of civility in some of the threads. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, i see that you removed it. Thank you. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the gist of it and see where the disagreement between everyone is. I think @Czarking0 might be out of the loop and apologies on my end for the delay.

Fishestablishment (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me Czarking0 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Updating photo

Hi Editors, I just donated a new photo to Wikimedia commons, and I was wondering if an editor would be willing to swap out the old photo in the products section with this updated one. Thank you! M at Flock (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Done DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 01:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@DiscoursesonLivvy: Thank you for updating the image. I noticed that in Czarking0's edit rolling back some changes that the new image was removed. Can either of you reconsider adding the new image back to the article? M at Flock (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@DiscoursesonLivvy and Czarking0: Pinging again in case you hadn't seen my last message. It appears the new image (File:Flock Safety Camera and Solar Panel.jpg) was inadvertently removed. Would you reconsider adding it back? Thank you. M at Flock (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Speculation in introduction

Hi Editors! Flock Safety employee here to bring up a potential issue in the introduction. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't make the edit myself.

Currently, the introduction reads: "Flock Safety's network of cameras, utilizing image recognition and machine learning, can share data with police departments and can be integrated into predictive policing platforms like Palantir." (Source: Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World, pp. 45–46)

Specifically, the source says: "Flock Safety's system is not simply a surveillance camera, it is a network of cameras combined with software that uses image recognition and machine learning to identify certain kinds of behaviour. The promotional material doesn't describe machine learning beyond what is used for image recognition, but the data produced by the system will be connected with other datasets and can be shared with other police departments. Some of these departments will use systems such as the data analytics platform Palantir to combine multiple data sources and use machine learning algorithms for predictive policing."

Its placement in the introduction is quite prominent for a source that, as written, is speculative. In addition to the speculation, the issue is also not supported in the body of the article. I suggest this sentence be rewritten to be a more general statement about integration with police departments. For example: "Flock Safety's network of cameras, utilizing image recognition and machine learning, can be integrated with law-enforcement analytic platforms."

Thank you. M at Flock (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a bit more on how it's "speculative" and why it should be changed for that reason? Kire1975 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kire1975: Thanks for the reply. It's speculative because as written, it's more theoretical than demonstrating in a measurable way how departments use various data sets. It says that Flock's data will be connected to other data sets and that some departments will use systems such as Palantir. However, there are no independent third-party reliable sources that say how this is done. A Google search of something like "flock safety integrates with palantir?" displays no third-party references to an integration.

Law enforcement agencies can use many tools for various things. Flock data is used by police departments, some of which use Palantir for predictive policing, but there is no direct integration between Flock and Palantir. The Wikipedia text collapses this into a claim about Flock platform integration that sourcing does not support.

If the lead is going to have a general statement about integrating various platforms, I suggest it exclude speculation about which platforms. I appreciate your consideration. M at Flock (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, integrate and combine are synonyms. Kire1975 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Done Czarking0 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0: Thank you for moving this content. I do wonder what you think of potentially removing the reference to Palantir specifically? As it appears in this article, it looks as though Palantir integration is an official feature. It is not. For discussion purposes, Flock's website also makes this point: "No, Flock does not work with Palantir. Palantir does not have access to any Flock customer data." Given the lack of sourcing, I suggest a more general statement such as the one I outlined above. But of course, I defer to editor judgment here. M at Flock (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The book source makes a direct reference for Palantir. I see that as due for inclusion right now. However, I added an attribution to try to indicate that this potential for integration is not directly support by Flock. Czarking0 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand, thank you for making that change! M at Flock (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to update company infobox logo to current version

Hello editors, I have a conflict of interest as I work with Flock Safety. I would like to request updating the infobox logo to the current official version.

The current logo on the article [File:Flock_Safety_logo_(2025).svg] is outdated. The updated official version of the logo has been uploaded under the name [File:Flock_Logo_Green.svg].

I believe this meets Wikipedia’s fair use criteria because it is a low-resolution logo used solely for identification. Can an editor review this and add it if appropriate? Thank you! M at Flock (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Done Czarking0 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Cops Keep Getting Arrested for Using Flock to Stalk People
• City Learns Flock Accessed Cameras in Children's Gymnastics Room as a Sales Pitch Demo, Renews Contract Anyway

Both are by 404 Media. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Small clarification

Hello editors, on behalf of Flock Safety, I am requesting editors update Matt Feury's role. The Corporate history section includes: "It was co-founded by three Georgia Tech alumni: Garrett Langley (CEO), Paige Todd (CHRO), and Matt Feury (CTO)" Feury is no longer CTO. There are no sources about Feury's departure, but this source verifies that someone else held that role by 2025.

Can an editor update the mention of Feury to say "then-CTO" or "former CTO"? Thank you. M at Flock (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I removed the titles from all the co-founders because they were not verified in the current sourcing. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 11:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for those changes. M at Flock (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Information on retention and transparency portals

Hello editors. I have a conflict of interest as I work with Flock Safety. This article contains no specifics about Flock Safety's data retention. Since data retention is an important attribute of Flock Safety's products and its transparency portals offer limited statistics into their use, I suggest adding content to the Automatic license plate readers subsection.

Flock data is retained by the company for 30 days by default before it is deleted. Jurisdictions have the ability to adjust this retention period; for example, the Flagstaff Police Department reduced its retention to 14 days in 2025 amid community concerns about data sharing. Agencies using Flock Safety cameras are able to determine access controls and data-sharing within the platform. Flock Safety maintains what it calls "transparency portals", which Berkeleyside said publishes "some limited statistics of the numbers of searches made on and vehicles detected by local ALPR networks".

References

If editors want more information on how rentention/deletion work, this public document offers more insight.

Can an editor review this and add it if appropriate? Thank you! M at Flock (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

One of the reasons I have been hesitant to address this myself is I think there is ambiguity around what these retention policies actually mean. I understand that Flock says the data is not retained beyond some period. Certainly this means that a customer who has set their retention to 14 days cannot access that data on day 15. However, I have not seen any third party info about what is actually happening to the data. Cybersecurity researchers with physical device access demonstrated methods to access all the data the camera has ever seen all the way back to test images from inside the factory that produced the cameras. To me this indicates that is its not accurate to say that the data is not retained.Czarking0 (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

While information may be deleted in a specific amount of time, the amount of information shared with other agencies seems to suggest that it could be possible for an agency to hold onto Flock data via some kind of saving of the data or download for longer then allowed (and, on a side note, only primary Flock sources say the data goes away after that time period, whereas third party sources seem to suggest otherwise or nothing at all). Also, this is sometimes considered contentious and as a COI editor, I would say this is not the best part of this article for you to edit. Full disclosure, I dislike Flock cameras and so I may be biased, but in general I feel information that is mildly contentious should not be added to an article by a COI editor. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0: That's a fair point. I can edit the proposal to focus the information regarding deletion in terms of customer access to the data, rather than data destruction.

Flock Safety's data retention policy sets a default window of 30 days during which an agency can access its data. Jurisdictions have the ability to adjust this retention period; for example, the Flagstaff Police Department reduced its retention to 14 days in 2025 amid community concerns about data sharing. Agencies using Flock Safety cameras are able to determine access controls and data-sharing within the platform. Flock Safety maintains what it calls "transparency portals", which Berkeleyside said publishes "some limited statistics of the numbers of searches made on and vehicles detected by local ALPR networks".

References

@Ilov3gam3z: I appreciate your feedback. I understand great care must go into sensitive topics, especially when there is a conflict of interest, which is why I'm here on the Talk page offering suggestions to the community to consider. For this specific request, the main thing I am trying to address is the missing clean description of retention based on what's available in reliable sources.

Thank you both. M at Flock (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done: This strikes me as somewhat WP:BACKWARDS and not a fair summary of the sources. The suggestion Flagstaff Police Department reduced its retention to 14 days in 2025 amid community concerns about data sharing is not an NPOV summary of the source which states

The department removed the city's data from both Flock's national and state-wide lookup networks, and instead opted to only share data with two local agencies. The police department also changed its data retention period to 14 days, down from 30. But after the police presentation, the public comment period was dominated by residents sharing concerns about Flock.

"We do not support AI mass surveillance as the current federal administration is gathering and weaponizing data," said Flagstaff resident Michele James.

Another resident referenced an Electronic Frontier Foundation analysis that found a significant number of police departments had searched Flock's network in connection with protest activity. Multiple speakers brought up a report by the independent tech outlet, 404 Media, about Texas sheriff's deputies who searched for the car of a woman who had an abortion.

Flagstaff Mayor Becky Daggett told NPR she initially hoped it would work to keep using the cameras with more guardrails in place, but she came to understand the community had lost trust in Flock.

"In the end, it was just clear that this wasn't going to be a technology that was going to be well received or that we could continue to use," Daggett said. The council voted to end their Flock contract. Czarking0 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0: I appreciate the feedback, and I think I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps I can back up a bit and ask a question, do you think it is worth including a mention of the data retention policy? I felt like it was useful context, but will defer to whatever you think makes sense. Thanks again for your thoughtful responses! M at Flock (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it probably is worth some mention however since it I have not seen independent sources directly covering the retention it is hard to make a statement that is not WP:SYNTH of different sources Czarking0 (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0: I see what you mean, for most of these sources data retention is a passing mention and not a focus. The best of them is the WOSU article, which includes a few paragraphs about data retention and contextualizes Flock Safety's data retention with similar products:

"The technology also generates a lot of data through its constant scanning. Storing that amount of data can get expensive, which is why companies often offer data storage as part of their services.

This also places companies in charge of data security and retention. Most companies' contracts have a clause regarding data retention and its deletion, including clauses regarding if data is subpoenaed or being used for an investigation.

Flock said it holds on to that data for 30 days before they delete it. Genetec and Axon offer personalized retention lengths, with Genetec’s default set at seven days and Axon’s default set at 90 days. ShotSpotter stores the audio of an incident for 30 hours, but holds on to incident data for seven years."

If you think that's enough for a brief mention, I could propose a shortened addition from only that source. Otherwise, I'll leave this be and revisit if a source comes out that focuses more on data retention. Thanks! M at Flock (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure this is reliable since others have proven that Flock does not delete the data after 30 days Czarking0 (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

ACLU on 'lies' [New article]

Flock Safety Credibility Lost as it Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police Departments, and Public Across the Country

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/flock-safety-credibility-lost-as-it-repeatedly-lies-to-city-councils-police-departments-and-public-across-the-country

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Peter thiel

Can you add about Peter thiels connection to flock ~2026-41764-36 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What connection? Kire1975 (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Done, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1366565215 MovedRemote (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

 Implemented MovedRemote (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)