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)

Not sure how, but might be better to remove the redirect(?)

Seems to keep people from creating (steps towards) a stand-alone article. See this reasoning. ~2026-48441-71 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

sorry for the double post, appendix concerning notablity: have a look at the first page of a search engine ~2026-48441-71 (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Full articles are created from redirects all the time. If an editor creates his page, the wikilink can be added back in. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

You just created two additional redirects so you could pidgenhole your argument into them.

They are redirects with possibility, so the rule you are gaming doesn't even apply.

Yesterday you claimed the persons were not noteworthy. Now that one very obvious search proved that to be laughable, you astroturfed the entire bases of the discussion, so you can continue with your WAR.

The first victim of any war is truth, congrats though, you win the war. ~2026-48441-71 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Any one is free at any time to create an article on the persons. I believe that the latter two founders are not notable enough for standalone articles, and I also believe that redirects should be created for them. Please don't come onto my page with personal attacks. Thanks. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

I will PA you whenever I feel like it, that's how much I care about this glorious website, which in 2026 is cooked in more than one way. MUHAHAHA ~2026-48746-65 (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Also I'm a traveler and don't ever want an account, so get fucked. ~2026-48746-65 (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Also just imagine WP in 1933 xD You staunchly wrong solipsist. ~2026-48746-65 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

He's obviously not a real person. Come on man, his name is fucking Langley. ~2026-43860-33 (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

By my count, Wikipedia has at least 75 articles on people whose surname is Langley, which makes it a very real (and in fact pretty common) surname. BD2412 T 16:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This is an easy one; create a stub with the most basic information. Name; college, occupation. Wikipedia has stubs all over. Doesn't seem unreasonable to at least have a stub for the owner of a company who is in the news so much currently. Dougom (talk) 17:12, 28 September 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)

It doesn't really make sense to cite the companies stated purpose as that is subject to marketing claims and the company isn't practically liable for it. It makes sense that you would say what you said though, since your loyalty is bought and this doesn't mean at all that you are deceiving anyone on purpose, yet it does mean, that the companies influence on you is just too great to claim knowledge that is relevant for an outside actor.

It is an official feature however anyways, because integration into law enforcement is a official feature, it is clearly implied that this also means Palantir, just by how the world and politics currently is.

kind regards ~2026-48113-90 (talk) 09:48, 5 September 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)

New Reporting Data on Error Rates

Flock’s AI Cameras May Have Misread Over 70% of License Plates, Creating New Headaches for Cities (CNET)

https://www.cnet.com/home/security/flocks-ai-cameras-may-have-misread-over-70-of-license-plates-creating-new-headaches-for-cities/

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 08:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Err that headline is misinformation. That number is true only of Roseville, California, which has "an atypical setup for it's cameras... it has its cameras configured so that they capture only the backs of vehicles... and placement of cameras higher and further from vehicles than the company typically recommends". But I think it does make sense to include, with that context in mind. Endwise (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

At this point, shouldn't De-Flocking have its own section?

At this point, it is Very. VERY. Very. Widely. Reported that flock cameras are being cut down everywhere across the U.S. It is disputable how connected the Deflock movement is to these incidents, but it's extremely difficult to ignore that flock cameras are being cut down across the country. The incident in Winona where every single camera in the town was cut down overnight is a great example. ~2026-43713-92 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that it is widely reported. I'd suggest making a De-flock article and then we can transclude the lead. Czarking0 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Came here to suggest this as well, either an article for Deflock, or as a part of this article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Partially implemented - I've added most incidents I know of, but I do believe the section could use some more citations, addition of archive links, and some more info regarding total numbers of cameras taken down/destroyed, estimated value of destroyed cameras and costs to replace, and places simply not renewing their Flock contracts after repeated vandalism to display its effects on the use of Flock devices. MovedRemote (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Flock blocked the Wayback Machine

"Flock Blocked the Wayback Machine. That Should Worry Everyone".

The world has a lot to worry about, and not sure this rises to the level of "worrying everyone", but it is ironic and concerning and probably worth a mention. -- GreenC 00:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Lots of info, unsure which section to add these to

I've got a few things I think are most definitely of note, but I'm not really sure where they should go in the article. If anyone has any ideas, please share! (I don't think any of this is currently in the article, but I could be wrong!)

I'll include links with various information and quotes I think would be good to add:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/08/flock-camera-abuse-technology-license-plate-misconduct-sidhu/

- Flock alleges they keep getting bad press because they're essentially too good at catching abusers of their systems - "One of the many problems with Flock as a company is that they they treat legitimate privacy concerns as if they are just PR issues" & "[Flock] thinks if it just includes itself as a watchdog of the problem it’s creating, it somehow deserves a pat on the back." from Chad Marlow (ACLU senior policy counsel)

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/14/flock-ceo-apologizes-misuse-surveillance-technology/

- Flock CEO apologizes to a woman who was stalked using Flock

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/08/13/flock-cameras-update-after-police-abuse-scandals/91272776007/

- Flock CEO says "you will get caught" to law enforcement officers abusing the tech - Flock's "audit assistance" tool used to be opt-in only, is now universal (requires reasons for vehicle search to be listed, retains data for 7 days instead of 30, departments can limit types of cases searchable by other connected departments, flags abnormal behavior like time-of-day issues or repeated searches, automatic lockouts) - Flock CEO now states that tools for law enforcement should implement every safeguard possible, rather than his previous statements where he claimed it's not Flock's job to do that

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/flock-taking-break-responding-media

- Flock is no longer responding to requests from media (quote of auto-reply from Flock can be found in article)

https://futurism.com/future-society/grand-jury-ohio-flock-alpr-surveillance-felony-legal

- A grand jury 'refused to bring charges (in a case they had strong evidence in) against a man accused of dropping a pole Flock was attached to and destroying the camera & solar panel

https://www.404media.co/darth-vader-spoke-in-support-of-flock-at-san-diego-city-council-meeting/

- Satire "Darth Vader" public comment incident, I think while this individual instance isn't of note on its own, it could be good in a future list of notable public backlash/comment to local town & city officials

https://proton.me/blog/flock-ceo-interview

- Flock CEO's statements on many things: - Stating they can change software capabilities without a city council ever approving that capability (what Proton considers in this article as mission creep) - "I disagree with those statements" in reference to departments claiming data was shared without permission (e.g. to the federal government) - "We knew this was a risk nine years ago" (in reference to cops abusing their access to Flock to stalk people) - only now are they mandating auditing.

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/oviedo-police-use-fake-flock-camera-catch-vandalism-suspect

- Police 3D-printed a fake Flock camera to catch someone who allegedly cut them down previously

I think the article would significantly benefit from the addition of a section on people removing the cameras (and possibly a subsection for arrests/charges), and possibly a section on statements from Flock & its CEO to demonstrate the change in their stances over time. MovedRemote (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

So far I've added the "nine years ago" statement to the article, as well as changes regarding auditing. The rest still needs adding though. MovedRemote (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Unlocked

How is this page possibly not under protection yet? Malcolmmwa (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Page hasn't been vandalized since being unprotected 2 days ago, and protection is not given preemptively. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

New information on FreeForm

WIRED has published some new reporting on Flock's "FreeForm" search tool.

Has information on warn/block categories based on what officers search for, Flock's agreement officers have to agree to, lack of warnings or blocks for political/social/cultural characteristics.

Also has some info right at the bottom saying a South Carolina sheriff's office enabled the effectively mandatory auditing features Flock provides, and they got 2,700 unauthorized search warnings one day later. Very valuable information, I think.

I'm not currently able to add this at the moment due to my schedule, anyone else up for it? MovedRemote (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race and Technology

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 25 August 2026 and 6 December 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Behaviorexpert2027 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Literature Unicorn (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)