Flock, the license-plate-reading camera company used by law enforcement agencies, is trying to turn its internal privacy rules into a template for future U.S. surveillance law, according to reporting by Andrew Rice of The Center Square.
The push comes as the company faces sustained scrutiny from lawmakers and the public over how its cameras are used, how long data is stored, and what happens when officers misuse the system.
A company policy becoming public law?
Dan Haley, Flock’s chief legal officer, told The Center Square that the United States does not have one comprehensive privacy law governing companies like Flock. He said the company has built policies around data audits, retention limits and access controls that could help shape future legislation.
“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.”
Haley pointed to Flock’s audit logs, which he said create a permanent record when license plate images are collected. He argued that those records make abuse easier to detect.
“If you abuse it, the evidence of that abuse goes right there in the audit log and it’s a public record,” Haley told The Center Square.
Data retention shrinks after controversy
Flock previously held captured data for 30 days while allowing communities to set specific defaults, according to the report. The company recently changed that policy to allow only seven days of data retention after increased controversy.
Haley also said Flock restricts use of its data to situations where 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.
The company has also implemented an automated review process that Haley said can flag certain suspicious behavior for further analysis.
Misuse cases are sharpening the debate
The Center Square reported that officers across the country have been fired in recent weeks for alleged misuse of Flock cameras following review.
In South Carolina, Officer Ellie Anna Hammond was fired after using Flock camera technology to track the license plate of a previous love interest, according to documents cited by The Center Square.
Haley acknowledged the possibility of misuse but compared the issue to other law enforcement tools that can be abused.
“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.”
Lawmakers want clearer information
Flock argues that its cameras help law enforcement solve criminal cases, rescue kidnapped people and locate missing individuals. Haley pointed to a Flock report stating that more than 10,000 missing individuals were returned safely with assistance from Flock cameras in 2025.
But concerns remain. West Virginia State Delegate Tristan Leavitt told The Center Square that lawmakers are worried about the risks of a breach involving Flock’s database.
“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.”
The company has hired independent security firm Bishop Fox to review its products and capabilities, according to prior reporting from The Center Square. That report is expected next month.
The unresolved privacy question
Haley said public anger has grown partly because Flock cameras are now more visible in public spaces. He also said the company needs to do more to explain how the technology works and what legal limits apply.
“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.”
The core dispute is not whether license-plate readers can help police. The fight is over who writes the rules, how independent those rules are, and whether company-designed safeguards are enough to protect the public when surveillance systems spread.
