Customer-Losing Flock Now Offers Buyouts to Avoid Laying Off Employees (wired.com) 78
Mashable writes:
Flock Safety offered employees voluntary buyouts on Friday, WIRED reported... Without the buyouts, those familiar with the situation suspect the company would have to lay off some of its 1,500 employees.
WIRED writes that people familiar with the program "say they believe that a significant number of the startup's roughly 1,500 employees may try to depart." Flock is making the severance offers as it continues to lose customers... The company has had many of its contracts either not extended or dropped this year, which could leave it short of revenue goals, according to two of the people. A wave of vandalism targeting its cameras has unexpectedly increased expenses. Without buyouts, Flock almost certainly would have to lay off some staff, one of the people believes... People familiar with Flock's severance plan tell WIRED that some employees may take the offer amid speculation that the company, which has raised about $1.2 billion in venture capital, might resort to selling off parts or all of its business to stay afloat... One advocacy group identified 93 city and county governments that cut ties with Flock in August alone. Overall in 2026, roughly three times as many local governments have dropped Flock compared to the previous five years.
Flock has recently been building products that extend the company beyond its core license plate reader offering. WIRED reported last month that the company has developed AI-powered investigative software to identify drivers, find potential associates based on patterns of movement, and search across police records and other data. A separate WIRED analysis of Flock's software found tools designed to continuously search camera feeds for people matching written descriptions. WIRED's analysis of Flock's code also found potential integrations with drones and other surveillance systems.
Flock's financial scrambles might explain an incident in Syracuse, New York. The nonprofit news site Central Current discovered the city's contract said its license plate data wouldn't be shared outside the police department, reports Mashable: But the department had granted access to other agencies, which police said was an accident. Over roughly a year, searches by officers around the country reached Syracuse's data nearly 4.4 million times. And that wasn't the only surprise in the paperwork. Central Current also found that Flock could keep using Syracuse data after the contract ended. When the city approved cameras from Axon to replace Flock's, Flock said Syracuse couldn't simply end its agreement early. It warned that the city might have to pay for both systems; so even as officials moved to replace the cameras, they faced questions about what Flock could do with the data and what the city might still owe.
Meanwhile, the Texas Department of Transportation "has stopped issuing permits allowing Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers to be installed along state roads..." reports the Texas Tribune. "There were an estimated 13,000 Flock cameras across Texas in August, but hundreds of the devices have been shut down after [governor] Abbott's funding freeze."
And in August Florida's Republican Governor "ordered his state's transportation department to remove the cameras from state roads, saying he didn't want 'a surveillance state.'"
WIRED writes that people familiar with the program "say they believe that a significant number of the startup's roughly 1,500 employees may try to depart." Flock is making the severance offers as it continues to lose customers... The company has had many of its contracts either not extended or dropped this year, which could leave it short of revenue goals, according to two of the people. A wave of vandalism targeting its cameras has unexpectedly increased expenses. Without buyouts, Flock almost certainly would have to lay off some staff, one of the people believes... People familiar with Flock's severance plan tell WIRED that some employees may take the offer amid speculation that the company, which has raised about $1.2 billion in venture capital, might resort to selling off parts or all of its business to stay afloat... One advocacy group identified 93 city and county governments that cut ties with Flock in August alone. Overall in 2026, roughly three times as many local governments have dropped Flock compared to the previous five years.
Flock has recently been building products that extend the company beyond its core license plate reader offering. WIRED reported last month that the company has developed AI-powered investigative software to identify drivers, find potential associates based on patterns of movement, and search across police records and other data. A separate WIRED analysis of Flock's software found tools designed to continuously search camera feeds for people matching written descriptions. WIRED's analysis of Flock's code also found potential integrations with drones and other surveillance systems.
Flock's financial scrambles might explain an incident in Syracuse, New York. The nonprofit news site Central Current discovered the city's contract said its license plate data wouldn't be shared outside the police department, reports Mashable: But the department had granted access to other agencies, which police said was an accident. Over roughly a year, searches by officers around the country reached Syracuse's data nearly 4.4 million times. And that wasn't the only surprise in the paperwork. Central Current also found that Flock could keep using Syracuse data after the contract ended. When the city approved cameras from Axon to replace Flock's, Flock said Syracuse couldn't simply end its agreement early. It warned that the city might have to pay for both systems; so even as officials moved to replace the cameras, they faced questions about what Flock could do with the data and what the city might still owe.
Meanwhile, the Texas Department of Transportation "has stopped issuing permits allowing Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers to be installed along state roads..." reports the Texas Tribune. "There were an estimated 13,000 Flock cameras across Texas in August, but hundreds of the devices have been shut down after [governor] Abbott's funding freeze."
And in August Florida's Republican Governor "ordered his state's transportation department to remove the cameras from state roads, saying he didn't want 'a surveillance state.'"
Oh Noes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Won't someone PLEASE think about the poor corporate overlords?
They're only violating the constitution so that they can hire more employees!
And frankly, all the hate goes does for the next Flock company. Axon? They KNOW how much people hare their rights being violated and they're doubling down on it?
Re: (Score:1)
What makes you think that stopped?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Which part of the Constitution are they allegedly violating?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh Noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong, constitutional rights are also held to be civil rights and entities other than the government can violate those rights and be held accountable if they are working with the government in some amount of capacity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Oh Noes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So stalking is constitutional, then?
'cause it's not just "recording in public" it's full tracking and profiling. Who you are, where you are, when you're there. A full record of your daily activities from the moment you walk out your front door to the moment you get home again.
If the government was doing this directly in the same manner as these corporations do (e.g. without a warrant) it would 100% be a violation of your constitutional rights. The fact that the government does it by proxy, letting a private
Re: (Score:3)
If someone shouts, "But that violates the Constitution," that has a very specific and narrow meaning and, unless you can cite the exact part of the Constitution it violates, it not unconstitutional.
I'm talking ONLY a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go read SCOTUS rulings and stop throwing around baseless BS on a website.
Do something good with your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Flock collecting data is no more a violation of the Constitution than your cell phone carrier (or Google or Apple) collecting your cell phone location data.
It's not until the police search that data without a valid warrant that it becomes an issue; but there mere collection of the data by Flock violates nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
You dont want to learn, you just want to waste time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The argument was the police use, not flock itself.
Now if flock is insecure (which it is), then it is also liable for leaks and manipulation of facts. The chain of custody is broken by default.
Re: (Score:2)
The story is about Flock. The OP said "corporate": Flock (not the police) is a corporation. Therefore, the "They" in "They're" refers to Flock being able to hire more employees. The story was about Flock laying off employees. There's no sensible way Flock wasn't meant as the entity allegedly doing the violating.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would be the LEOs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh Noes! (Score:2)
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Piecing together information from the thousand or so cameras that see you everyday is a violation of the 4th Amendment if sold to the police or otherwise is acting on the direction of the police. They need a warrant and Chatrie v. United States is only the beginning of how privacy violating tech companies are going to get slapped down.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's likely that such tracking will eventually be unconstitutional, but, until the Supreme Court says so, it's not.
That aside, Chatrie v. United States isn't a great precedent case because there are other
Re: Oh Noes! (Score:4, Informative)
Even that's not as creepy as Flock giving access to anyone who installs it access to the entire network.
It's the network effect - the whole is greater than the sum of its pieces - multiplied. A LEO in some rural part of a flyover state, because their town installed Flock, now has access to Flock cameras in Houston or LA or New York.
In other words, the potential for abuse is too tempting. Even if it was for legitimate law enforcement uses, if you required a warrant to get information on a car, you could ask your buddy to do the lookup for you located across the country where no warrant is required and get the same information.
It's funny because the other ALPR systems out there (e.g., Axon, etc) restricted users to the cameras they installed. So you could stalk your ex if they lived in the same town or city, but if they moved, that's it. Once they left city limits you can't track them anymore without cooperation from another agency.
It's not that ALPRs are bad - you probably run into a ton of them as they're everywhere. They handle your toll charges if you use a toll road or bridge without having to stop and pay at a booth. They handle your parking (did you know chalking a tire can be considered a 4th Amendment violation? Well, that just means cities switch to ALPRs to handle their parking enforcement).
And when Flock started, it started as a way for private individuals to monitor their traffic - private companies would install it to their parking lots, HOAs on their roads, etc. But it was again limited to just those uses - the HOA could only get information about its cameras.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah my sig-stalker is alive and well! Hello good sir, how are you I have not seen you in a while! I am still curious as to who I'm supposedly thinking about, other than a name that doesn't sound wildly uncommon.
Re: (Score:2)
You stupid gamergate moron. This is why you can't get laid. You can't even remember the bitches you were white-knighting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, Flock isn't the government.
ADORABLE.
Now, quick question: Do they sell to the government? Is the government partaking of these services? IS THE GOVERNMENT THEN VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT (using Flock cameras)? Then we have a problem here.
Seriously, do you also think the CIA murdering people is hunky dory just because a non-government corporation made the gun and the bullet?
the 4th doesn't apply here
I am a US citizen and shall be secure in my person and papers. If they have a dragnet of everyone's personal information (their location at all times) and have
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the OP claimed Flock (not the government) is violating the Constitution. Flock isn't; the government is, but when (and only when) they actually search through the data. Flock merely collecting all the data is not a violation of the Constitution. You need to learn to make careful distinctions.
Fun fact: the Constitution, specifically the rights granted by the Bill
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the OP claimed Flock (not the government) is violating the Constitution. Flock isn't; the government
What a garbage argument. They sell it to the government. The government is partaking of these services. THE GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT!!!! ....using Flock cameras.
Was this really so hard to extrapolate? Now, if Flock wants to set up cameras on THEIR property and record things and NOT GIVE IT TO THE GOVERNMENT! Then, hey, sure, THEN you have an argument. But the moment that any form of US government made any sort of contract, Flock started performing actions for the government and the 4t
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and I never said otherwise. If the police beat you with a club while in custody violating the constitution, the club manufacturer, say Acme, isn't violating the Constitution. Only the police are even though they're using Acme clubs.
But Flock is still not violating the Constitution. The fact that you seem incapable of understanding that distinctio
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Cool cool cool.
So cancel every contract Flock has with any government organization, and remove them from government / public property, and this problem is solved.
It's so great we can be in agreement.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which part of the Constitution are they allegedly violating?
I really wish more people understood this. The Constitution only protects you from the government. It does nothing to protect you from private companies collecting your information, and do they ever. As electronics get more advanced, the amount of information private companies are collecting is ever increasing. TVs listen in on every conversation. VR headsets map out your house. And cameras installed on street lights record every vehicle they see.
Which brings me to the second very important point about Floc
Re: Oh Noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What use is the constitution then if the government just has to hire a private entity to do the things the constitution blocks?
Good point. It's something that really should be addressed. But the Constitution was designed as a limit solely on the government's powers, and it's up to the government as described in the Constitution to write laws that restrict what private entities can do, within the bounds of their enforcement powers as provided by the Constitution.
This isn't a new problem. After Snowden, the US realized they could pretty much just outsource the NSA's spying. And they have.
And the other thing is: none of this is really
Re: (Score:2)
But is it not the government hiring flock to do this?
That largely depends on what the contract actually says, and how the data is 'federated' within Flock's own systems.
It sounds like Flock's business model was to build the massive data-collection system, but since that's expensive, it used contracts with government entities to pay for the build-out. The contracts with each of the entities might well be for the services delivered to them, but since many municipalities have separate contracts for how real estate (and installing something on a light pole count
Re: Oh Noes! (Score:3)
If I help you get rid of the gun you shot someone with, technically I didn't commit the murder. I'm still on the hook for it though.
This isn't that different: it's the state that violates constitutional rights. Flock helps with that. They should be treated like the guy helping getting rid of the murder weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is paying Flock to put up and operate the cameras? Who is searching the databases they create? I'm fine with saying that Flock isn't violating the constitution, so long as you say that a government entity (town, county, state, federal, whatever) paying Flock or using their database IS a violation. If there are zero government contracts for Flock to up their cameras, what do you think happens to the company?
Re: Oh Noes! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Oh Noes! (Score:2)
A private party can sometimes be treated as a government actor, but it is rare to fit the narrow definition that prior courts have carved out.
And the 13th Amendment covers private actions, so it is example of a case where Amendments are not purely about state action doctrine.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitutional question that the 13th amendment adresses is overriding state's rights to decide if slavery was not a crime, otherwise the Federal legislature could have just passed a law criminalizing slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
For private citizens, the 13th eliminates the ability of parties to enter in indentured servitude contracts. And civil statutes built around the authority of that Amendment are used to regulate some private actions. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts (including by private businesses and schools); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1982, which prohibits racial discrimination in private property transactions.
Re: Oh Noes! (Score:1)
Want to be Part of Something Bigger? (Score:2)
https://www.flocksafety.com/ca... [flocksafety.com]
Maybe you can still get in before it goes under.
Re: (Score:2)
I challenge that assertion (Score:2)
Corporations stealing government-supplied data is a sensitive topic at the moment, so Florida, Texas and NY City are down-sizing their fascist habits to control voter outrage. While Texas and Florida are gerrymandered into endless Republican government, NY City is vulnerable to outrage and voters who lack the integrity to vote Independent.
Re: I challenge that assertion (Score:3)
Not even downsized, more like taking a short break from the regularly scheduled fascist dystopia. The fake concern and imagary compliance is very much temporary. Once the American people lose interest and follow a new distraction, they can install 2X more cameras and 10X more AI
DDSS (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sure there are already other companies ready to jump in, to do the same thing. And in a few years, things will be right where they were before- perhaps worse.
The fight shouldn't be against Flock. It should be against the concept of blanket surveillance, data retention/sharing, and using/searching that data without warrants. And that requires changing government legislation, budgets, and mindsets.
Re: (Score:2)
If Flock is losing money, then presumably so will everyone else.
Flock pays for vandalism? (Score:2)
What kind of crackhead at Flock agreed to a contract obligating them to cover the cost of cameras lost to vandals?
Re: Flock pays for vandalism? (Score:2)
If I was running a town budget I wouldn't want to insure that shit. If any vendor offered to pay for the vandalism and eat the insurance premiums and deductibles, then that is a huge point in favor of that vendor. Disasterous for their business though.
Re: (Score:2)
It would make sense for Flock to have guarantees for weather damage or similar, but vandalism is a lae enforcement proposition. Flock definitely overextended themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Law not lae.
Re: Flock pays for vandalism? (Score:2)
Private parties can write up any contract they like.
And law enforcement simply investigates vandalism they are not going to pay for it or fix it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do that in parallel. Law enforcement and the owner of the private property fixing stuff is not mutually exclusive. I lived in a town with a lot of broken shit because people would wreck it, tag it, carve into it, etc and the city wouldn't pay to fix it. So signs stay covered in lame tags, trash cans in the park don't open anymore, the typical urban decay when a city neither enforces laws nor picks up the tab to set things right.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the only option, the police can't be involved in providing it at all or they'll lose their warrant loophole.
How extremely sad (Score:5, Informative)
Shively, Kentucky (2026) – Officer Asad Zahir allegedly ran 2,048 Flock searches on two vehicles tied to his child’s mother over ~5 months; 241 searches occurred while a protection order was active. Charged with official misconduct and unlawful computer access.
Fort Pierce, Florida (2025–26) – Former officer Josepher Crutchfield searched a woman’s plate 189 times in 8 months via Flock; she later filed a stalking protection order. Charged with felony unauthorized computer access.
Richmond County, Georgia (2023–25) – Deputy Jose Ferrer searched a single tag at least 1,146 times, entering reasons like “SUSPICIOUS” and “BOB.” Arrested for ALPR misuse and oath violations.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (2025–26) – Officer Josue Ayala used Flock to learn his partner’s location 124 times and her ex’s 55 times; pleaded guilty to attempted misconduct. Weeks later, the internalaffairs detective investigating him, Tehrangi Chapman, was arrested for his own Flock/GPS stalking.
Amarillo, Texas (2026) – Former officer Christian Eder faces 78 misdemeanor counts for running a romantic rival’s plate 76 times with fake reasons.
San Jose, California (2026) – SJPD fired an officer who abused Flock to help his cousin track a woman who had accused the cousin of domestic violence; cited by advocates as a third CA ALPRstalking case.
Bibb County, Georgia (2026) – Three former sheriff’s deputies (Toni Lewis, Coznavian Stubbs, Joseph Callaway) arrested for using Flock to stalk people with whom they had personal relationships; charged with stalking and prohibited licenseplate data use.
Katy, Texas (2024–25) – Former officer Sergio Guadalupe Rodriguez indicted for using Flock (and a tracking device) to stalk his exwife over several months; charged with stalking and misuse of official information.
Orange City, Florida (2024) – Former officer Jarmarus Brown arrested for searching his exgirlfriend’s plates 100+ times and sharing vehicle videos via his agency laptop.
Albany County, New York (2026) – Sheriff’s investigator accused of spying on nearly halfadozen people, including an exgirlfriend, via Flock over ~2 years; faced criminal charges.
New Bedford, Massachusetts (2026) – Officer accused of tracking an exgirlfriend via Flock; department temporarily shut its ALPR network after audit showed “a concerning number of times” her plate was searched.
Sarasota, Florida (2026) – Officer Cory Waiters fired and arrested after 335 Flock searches of his expartner’s car; charged with computer misuse and official misconduct.
Lufkin, Texas (2026) – Officer Klein arrested after allegedly tracking seven plates, one of them over 3,400 times; department suspended Flock use.
Braintree, Massachusetts (2024–26) – Former detective Mark Sherrick charged with criminal harassment for using police tools including Flock, GPS, and databases to monitor his exgirlfriend for months.
Other documented misuse patterns
Nationwide tally (2026) – A Washington Post/USA TODAYcited investigation identified at least 50 officers charged or accused of unauthorized ALPR surveillance; 46 of those cases involved Flock. About half were ex/partner stalking cases.
Institute for Justice database – Catalogs 200+ ALPR abuse incidents, including domestic stalking, wrongful stops, and nonlawenforcement uses; Flock features heavily in recent officermisuse cases.
Immigration enforcement – ACLU notes ICE/CBP repeatedly used Flock to pursue immigrants without warrants, raising separate civilrights concerns beyond individual officer stalking.
Wrongful stops / escalations – Reports include a Colorado case where an officer wrongly accused a woman of theft based on a Flock hit and ignored exonerating
Flock is bad (Score:1, Insightful)
Flock interesting arctifacts (Score:1)
No funny? How sad. (Score:2)
No Funny here, even though I thought the disguised-downsizing story looked promising for Funny... I admit that I can't think of much beyond "Couldn't happen to an unnicer company."
As I looked over the comments the main stuff I noticed was some wannabe lawyer trying to defend fascism. Probably one of those jailhouse wannabe lawyers who got most of his legal training writing up his rejected appeals and writs of habeus corpus before the YOB sprang him.
As regards the larger topic area, I don't see how much it m
Don't hire them!!! (Score:1)
If they did it once, they'll do it again.
Also, an altruist needs to buy their IP when they fold so it can be destroyed, and not become the property of Palantir or Alphabet or any company owned by Blackrock/Vanguard/StateStreet.
Happy To Watch (Score:2)
I'm happy to watch Flock burn.
But, don't lose sight of the bigger picture. It's not just Flock, Axon, Motorola and others are eager to take Flock's place. The surveillance will continue. At least until a congress critter or three gets caught out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Plenty of other entities waiting in line to step in and fill the "security gap" here.
Let's not forget that if/when Flock goes under, the data they gathered will sold dirt cheap to anyone regardless of their background. Everyone is worrying about Flock data currently but no one is worrying about what will happen when the data is up for sale to data brokers.
Unexpected? (Score:2)
[...]wave of vandalism targeting its cameras has unexpectedly increased expenses
Introducing a mass surveillance system into America - a country proud of its independence - has the risk of backlash.
Surely this risk was acknowledged, estimated and accounted for in Flock's business planning.
So why is this all such a surprise now?