ATLANTA, Aug. 13 (Our Los Angeles) — Flock Safety says it will reduce the default time it keeps vehicle-location data from 30 days to seven, while adding new controls for police searches and access to its automated license-plate reader network.
The changes come as the Los Angeles Police Department has paused use of, or declined to renew, its agreement with the company. LAPD officials have cited concerns about who owns the data, how it is secured and whether it can be shared with other agencies.
The company announced the changes Aug. 13. They are intended to address criticism that Flock’s cameras create a broad record of where vehicles travel and that police employees have misused similar systems. Those reports describe alleged searches involving romantic partners and other personal connections. The reports are allegations, not findings that every department or officer misused the system.
What Flock is changing
Flock’s cameras read license plates and record information about vehicles passing them. Law enforcement agencies can use the system to search for vehicles connected to an investigation and, depending on the system’s settings and agreements, share searches with other agencies.
Under Flock’s new default, vehicle-location data will be kept for seven days instead of 30. Flock said agencies can preserve information longer for an active investigation through a feature called “Evidence Mode.” Longer retention can also be allowed by state or local policies.
Flock also said every search will require a stated reason and a case code. The company said genuine emergencies, such as searches for a missing child, will have an override.
The company said its Audit Assistance system will become standard for all law-enforcement customers. The system is designed to identify unusual search activity. It can lock a user out while an administrator reviews the activity.
Flock also said local agencies will be able to decide which types of offenses outside agencies may use when searching their camera data. That could include blocking searches tied to immigration enforcement.
The reforms do not mean all data will automatically be deleted after seven days. Evidence Mode and local rules may allow longer storage, and the precise effect of the new default in California depends on agency policies and applicable law.
Why Los Angeles is central to the dispute
LAPD operates or operated 138 Flock cameras in Los Angeles. The department’s memorandum with Flock, first entered in 2023, expired in June 2026. In July, LAPD paused use or did not renew the agreement while officials examined data-control and privacy issues.
Dean Gialamas, LAPD’s chief information officer, said the department did not renew the contract because of “serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues,” including privacy and the data collected by the cameras.
Gialamas also said the key issue was establishing clear terms for who owns the data and what happens to it after Flock collects it.
LAPD and Flock were reported to be discussing a new agreement. The proposed terms would give LAPD ownership of data and related metadata collected by the cameras, and would restrict Flock from distributing the information to another entity or using it to train artificial intelligence.
The Los Angeles City Council and the Board of Police Commissioners are also involved in local oversight. In late May, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado introduced a motion asking the police commission not to enter new Flock agreements or pilot programs.
The supplied records do not show whether LAPD has resumed using Flock cameras or completed a new agreement.
What critics say
The American Civil Liberties Union said Flock’s announcement appeared to be a public-relations response rather than a sufficient answer to concerns about mass surveillance. The group described the new security promises as largely hollow.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley has said the company’s goal is not a dystopian future and that the data should not be monetized. Flock has also said customers own the data and that its new controls are intended to limit improper access.
The debate is partly about technical safeguards and partly about who controls the system. Shorter retention may reduce the amount of historical travel information available in a routine search. Audit logs and required reasons may make questionable searches easier to detect. But those safeguards still depend on local agencies setting policies, reviewing alerts and deciding when searches are justified.
For Los Angeles, the immediate question is whether a revised contract can satisfy LAPD’s demands for data ownership, limits on sharing and restrictions on artificial-intelligence use. For other agencies, Flock’s announcement offers new tools, but it leaves local governments to decide how much surveillance to permit and how long records should remain available.
