# Flock Safety Introduces ALPR Reforms Amidst Backlash, Critics Remain Skeptical **Flock Safety**, a leading provider of mass surveillance technology, has rolled out a series of reforms in response to significant nationwide criticism. This backlash has led to numerous towns cancelling or suspending their contracts for the company's automated license plate readers (ALPRs). While some of these changes are long overdue, others are viewed as superficial, failing to address the core dangers inherent in this technology. ## Key Reforms and Their Implications The most substantial reform is **Flock Safety**'s new default setting for ALPR data retention: an optional 7-day period, a significant reduction from the previous 30-day default. Police departments now need to activate "Evidence Mode" to retain data beyond this period, linking it to an active investigation rather than a general search. This change is particularly noteworthy given that **Flock Safety** previously charged customers for extended data retention, potentially creating a financial disincentive for longer storage. ### Additional, Potentially Bypassable Changes **Flock Safety** has also introduced two other reforms that may be easier to circumvent: * **Offense Filtering:** Cities can now restrict access to their ALPR data by other departments to specific crime types, such as murder or robbery, excluding investigations related to immigration. * **Enhanced Audit Features:** The company claims to have bolstered its audit capabilities and will proactively lock out officers making suspicious data requests. However, critics argue these tools merely address problems created by **Flock Safety**'s own pervasive surveillance system. ## A Shift in Tone from Leadership Beyond policy adjustments, there's been a noticeable shift in rhetoric from **Flock Safety** CEO **Garrett Langley**. Previously, **Langley** had controversially labeled the **DeFlock movement** as "terrorists" (a statement for which he has since apologized) and attributed anti-surveillance sentiment to federal politics rather than company practices. His current stance is more conciliatory, acknowledging legitimate concerns about dangerous surveillance, mission creep, and potential police abuse. As reported by the BBC, **Langley** stated: > "Historically, my point of view as a chief executive of a private company was, I don't know if I should be making these decisions. I don't know if it's my job to say how long data should be retained." He further added his agreement with organizations like the **American Civil Liberties Union** and the **Electronic Frontier Foundation** that police should require an active case number to search **Flock Safety** data. > "They're right. I think it should be required." ## The Unresolved Privacy Dilemma Despite these reforms and the change in tone, a fundamental question remains: What prevents **Flock Safety** from reversing these policies if law enforcement customers defect to other ALPR vendors? Currently, nothing. This highlights a larger issue: the determination of privacy standards should not rest with surveillance technology companies. If privacy is dictated by vendors' interpretations of "too much surveillance," individuals are left vulnerable. It is imperative for lawmakers to enact legislation that effectively restricts police use of surveillance technology. The core problem lies in the surveillance business model itself, and piecemeal, company-imposed reforms are unlikely to resolve it.