Loading...
Loading...
A wave of FOIA disclosures and reports has intensified scrutiny of Flock Safety’s nationwide surveillance network. Records show company staff accessed live and recorded feeds — including in a children’s gymnastics facility and community center — during sales demos, while officers have allegedly misused the system to stalk individuals. Cities from Dayton to Dunwoody have paused or renewed contracts amid public outrage, litigation, and concerns that data aided immigration enforcement. Flock denies malicious intent but contradicts prior promises about staff access, sparking demands for stronger vendor controls, auditing, transparency and limits on public–private camera networks.
Dayton suspends Flock contract, says data used for immigration enforcement
A new report reveals that police officers have misused Flock Safety’s expansive network of ~80,000 private cameras and license-plate readers across the U.S. to stalk romantic partners and conduct personal surveillance. The company’s systems, sold to neighborhoods and law enforcement for crime-fighting, enable real-time searches and historical queries of vehicle and person movement; weak access controls, poor auditing, and lax policies have allowed officers to exploit those capabilities. Civil liberties groups warn this normalizes invasive, non-criminal monitoring and highlights regulatory gaps around public-private camera networks. The findings matter because they expose privacy risks in proliferating surveillance tech and push for stricter controls, transparency, and accountability from vendors and police agencies.
A city discovered that Flock Safety representatives accessed surveillance cameras in a children’s gymnastics facility as part of a sales demonstration. The incident, reported via a 404 Media article and discussed on Hacker News, raises questions about who authorized access and how vendors demonstrate camera and monitoring software. Key players include Flock Safety (a provider of license-plate and security camera systems) and the local municipal or facility administrators. It matters because vendor access to live camera feeds touches on privacy, consent, vendor security controls, and procurement practices for surveillance tech deployed in sensitive spaces. The episode highlights risks around demoing security products and the need for stricter access governance and transparency.
Flock cameras keep telling police a man who doesn't have a warrant has a warrant
Dunwoody, Georgia renewed a surveillance contract with Flock Safety despite revelations that the company accessed camera footage from a children's gymnastics facility to demonstrate its product to city officials. Residents are outraged over privacy breaches and lack of transparency as the city council voted to extend the deal for automated license-plate readers and camera monitoring. Flock and municipal leaders framed the system as a public-safety tool, but critics say the incident highlights inadequate oversight, weak data governance, and the potential for misuse of surveillance in sensitive spaces. The controversy matters because it raises legal and ethical questions about vendor access to citizen data, municipal procurement practices, and accountability for surveillance tech.
An Atlanta suburb discovered that Flock Safety sales staff accessed sensitive local cameras — including a children’s gymnastics room, a community center pool, playgrounds and fitness studios — during product demonstrations to police departments. Resident Jason Hunyar obtained access logs via public-records requests and published findings that prompted public outcry. Flock confirmed demo access under a city “demo partner” program and said select employees and engineers may view cameras with customer permission for demos or debugging, arguing it is transparent and aimed at crime prevention; it has since agreed to stop using Dunwoody’s cameras for demos. The episode raises questions about surveillance vendor access policies, privacy of privately owned cameras, and municipal oversight.
Flock Safety published an Apr. 17, 2026 blog post condemning “false” allegations that its employees spied on children after staff accessed cameras at the Marcus Jewish Community Center in Dunwoody, Georgia. IPVM reports there is no evidence of predatory intent, but says the incident still matters because FOIA-obtained logs show eight Flock sales employees accessed live and recorded feeds more than 480 times across Dunwoody’s network, contradicting Flock’s public FAQ claim that “nobody from Flock Safety is accessing or monitoring your footage.” The controversy adds to mounting pressure on Flock: dozens of cities have canceled or rejected contracts, lobbying spending has increased, and two class actions plus a new lawsuit are active. IPVM also criticizes Flock’s CEO for labeling privacy advocates “terrorists,” arguing the company applies inconsistent standards to rhetoric.
Flock Safety published an Apr. 17, 2026 blog post denying allegations that employees who accessed cameras at the Marcus Jewish Community Center in Dunwoody, Georgia acted as “child predators,” calling the claims false and life-altering. IPVM agreed there is no evidence of malicious intent, but reported that FOIA-obtained logs show eight Flock sales employees accessed live and recorded feeds on Dunwoody’s network more than 480 times, including inside the JCC and other public locations. Dunwoody’s mayor said Flock had been in “places they should not be,” and Flock apologized to the JCC. IPVM noted the access contradicted Flock’s FAQ pledge that no one at Flock monitors footage, and criticized the company’s CEO for previously labeling privacy advocates “terrorists.”