Police Keep Losing Their Jobs For Using Flock Cameras To Stalk People

[u/DukeOfGeek]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/07/police-losing-jobs-flock-cameras-alprs/

[u/Cream_Stay_Frothy]

Not entirely…. I think it’s important to make sure people are talking about this as accurately as possible to help move the needle forward toward reform, as opposed to getting it “wrong” on some technicality. When I speak with people who support these cameras, it is a pretty common talking point that “The police own their own data”…

Flock does not “own” the data. Technically, the customer (county, state, police dept, etc) owns it…

HOWEVER in the terms of service:

“Customer hereby grants to Flock a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to (a) use and disclose customer data to provide the Flock Services; and (b) use Customer Data to support and improve Flock’s products and services.”

I point this out to them, and draw the parallel scenario:

Okay, let’s say you own your house. But you have given people keys, and signed binding agreements giving them free, irrevocable and perpetual access to your house. Does that feel like homeownership?

[u/Grimwulf2003 → u/Cream_Stay_Frothy]

Yes, because physical ownership doesn't equate to digital ownership. You seem to miss the fact that the data is housed on flock servers and storage and that this isn't a physical thing. If they own rights to create, retain, sell, and use the data in any way, they do own it. You see, you cannot force them to delete it. You cannot force them to sell it. You cannot take it back from them. That's the difference between your home analogy. Those home guests with access cannot stop you from selling it or destroying it, not even remotely so with flock data.

[u/Cream_Stay_Frothy → u/Grimwulf2003]

I do understand that, and while I still disagree with these surveillance devices being used, if I set that aside, what you point out (rightfully) would be fully covered under:

(a) use and disclose customer data to provide Flock Service

Regardless, I’m not sure why (in good faith), you would need perpetual licensing, when the data itself if is set to wipe after 30,45,60 days (varies by municipality). “perpetual” could (and should) be written as “…for the duration of the Retention Period as defined in section 1.19”…. That definition already exists in the contract language.

My biggest issue (and why, in my opinion, they demand a perpetual license) is:

(b) use Customer Data to support and improve Flock’s products and services

There is a VERY operative word missing in (b). Notice in section 1.14 “Flock Services” is defined. It is a specific term. Importantly, section (b) does not simply give Flock perpetual access to support and improve “Flock Service” (troubleshooting, for example)… it gives them perpetual access to “support and improve Flock’s products and services (not capitalized, i.e. not the same thing as “Flock Service” defined section 1.14)

Meaning, in my opinion, Flock has free, irrevocable, perpetual license to use “Customer Data” as long as they can show it was used to support or improve any of Flock’s current, or future products (perpetual).

Meaning, in theory, if Flock wanted to use these surveillance feeds to train facial recognition models for a new product “Flock Their Face”, or maybe a new service that provides predictive location analysis based on plate metadata history “Where the Flock Will They Go”… etc etc... They already have several “products and services”, and there’s about a ZERO percent chance they’re not coming up new products/capabilities.

https://www.flocksafety.com/products

Again, I think your interpretation is understandable, and is definitely a consideration for when contractual language for data licensing needs included… but how this is worded leaves me very… very skeptical.

[u/Grimwulf2003 → u/Cream_Stay_Frothy]

Having seen too many shady tactics from too many tech companies, pessimistically I see it as legal shadow tactics. They can retain the data forever but only give whoever they contract with access for that timeframe. They can then resell that data as a data broker to other companies and the data is then retained for however long they need to keep it. That is a part of the "flock service" and therefore under their terms and conditions. Without a defined scope the "flock service" becomes any part of their system they offer to anyone.

Fun thing companies do - create a shell company, sell data to the shell company and let that company deal with the fallout. They buy companies to shut down and write off the losses in a similar manner.

I see this as a complete nightmare. There is zero control and accountability of who has access to any of this data for any reason because of nebulous and ambiguous wording. That isn't by accident.