Started By
Message

1 out of 3 Flock stolen vehicle alerts were bogus.

Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:53 pm
Posted by Night Vision
Member since Feb 2018
23872 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:53 pm
You know it is bad if the LAPD drops it.

LINK

More than 5,000 U.S. cities have Flock Safety cameras quietly scanning license plates on their streets. Most residents never voted on it. Now, a growing number of those cities are ripping up the contracts. According to NPR, at least 30 localities deactivated cameras or ended deals since early 2025. That number keeps climbing — one tally puts it at roughly 54 municipalities acting this year alone, with a broader count reaching 82 terminated contracts across 28 states, according to the Washington Examiner.

The reasons aren’t abstract. They’re specific, documented, and ugly.


The Numbers Don’t Lie
The scale of contract losses spans coast to coast, and the data behind them is difficult to ignore.

Contract cancellations or rejections have now hit 28 states, with California and Wisconsin leading at seven each, followed by New York, Washington, and Massachusetts with four each, per the Washington Examiner. The LAPD declined to renew its Flock contract after an internal audit found 161 false stolen-vehicle alerts in just two months — a 32.3% false-positive rate. LAPD’s chief information officer Dean Gialamas quoted “This contract is not being renewed because of serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues, particularly around privacy and the data that is being collected from these cameras.” Central objections across cities include:

- Data retention policies
- Lack of oversight
- Fears that plate-reader data could be accessed by federal immigration
authorities
- One in three alerts being wrong is the kind of accuracy rate that would get
a weather app deleted. For a system that can trigger police stops, the
stakes are considerably higher.

...
Posted by SouthEasternKaiju
SouthEast... you figure it out
Member since Aug 2021
49374 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:54 pm to
2 out of 3 aren’t?
Posted by Henry Jones Jr
Member since Jun 2011
77788 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:55 pm to
So more times than not they were right? Sounds like a technology that should be utilized and continued to be fine tuned

quote:

You know it is bad if the LAPD drops it.
Yeah it’s bad when one of the most corrupt cities on the planet’s police force drops something that helps find criminals and stolen property
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 12:57 pm
Posted by KosmoCramer
Member since Dec 2007
80711 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:55 pm to
This isn't a pro or anti flock post, but what's the difference between a patrol officer running a plate and getting a false positive and one triggered by a flock camera. It's the same result.
Posted by Night Vision
Member since Feb 2018
23872 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:56 pm to
Jab me harder daddy.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
175619 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:57 pm to
A 33 percent failure rate for something this consequential isn't acceptable.
Posted by DeBoar
Member since Jan 2024
3996 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:57 pm to
Flock shouldn’t be used for stolen vehicles. The only thing it should be used for is missing people and I’m very against flock in general. People aren’t stealing beaters so vehicles likely have technology to be tracked w/o flock.
Posted by Beessnax
Member since Nov 2015
11410 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:58 pm to
quote:

Fears that plate-reader data could be accessed by federal immigration


Ok so now we know which way the publisher leans
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
175619 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:58 pm to
quote:

People aren’t stealing beaters

Sadly a lot of stolen vehicles are just the starting point of a more nefarious crime spree. Beaters do get stolen for this reason
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
41776 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:58 pm to
quote:

This isn't a pro or anti flock post, but what's the difference between a patrol officer running a plate and getting a false positive and one triggered by a flock camera. It's the same result.


Is it? What's the error rate in the officer scenario currently? (genuinely asking, I don't know).
Posted by Night Vision
Member since Feb 2018
23872 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:59 pm to
Posted by KosmoCramer
Member since Dec 2007
80711 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:00 pm to
quote:

Is it? What's the error rate in the officer scenario currently? (genuinely asking, I don't know).


I assume officers run the plates separately once they find it before engaging in the stop, no?
Posted by Crimson Wraith
Member since Jan 2014
30368 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:00 pm to
Retard alert.
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
41776 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:05 pm to
quote:

I assume officers run the plates separately once they find it before engaging in the stop, no?


No idea. Moreso trying to figure out, if we are going to make the claim that errors happen either way, then obviously the magnitude of the errors is pretty relevant. If the officer running plates only results in an error say 10% of the time vs 33% for flock, that's a pretty substantial variance.
Posted by MMauler
Primary This RINO Traitor
Member since Jun 2013
24734 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:08 pm to
quote:

2 out of 3 aren’t?



So you're saying...

Posted by KosmoCramer
Member since Dec 2007
80711 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:12 pm to
The officer is likely required to also run the plate. That was the entire basis of my post.
Posted by Boom33
Member since Jul 2026
215 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:12 pm to
quote:


This isn't a pro or anti flock post, but what's the difference between a patrol officer running a plate and getting a false positive and one triggered by a flock camera. It's the same result.


The frequency, reasons and context of them. Human errors are rare.

The AI makes way more mistakes. They'll see a 0 as O. It might get your plate completely wrong, leaving off numbers/letters if they are in the wrong light. They might not notice other clues that the police would notice that would point out the mistake. Wrong color, make, model, etc.

The AI doesn't provide the same context either. A police officer might see a family and then when it comes back stolen, they will question the results and/or pull them over a nicer manner. Whereas AI provides no context, so cops pull the cars over with guns drawn and so forth.

If a human makes a mistake, they will be more careful in the future and fix that. With AI, it'll just keep doing the same thing over and over.

And that doesn't include that tracking data could be wrong and place you near the scene of a crime when you weren't anywhere near it and things of that nature.

Posted by weadjust
Member since Aug 2012
15811 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:13 pm to
quote:

what's the difference between a patrol officer running a plate and getting a false positive and one triggered by a flock camera. It's the same result.


A cop running the plate isn't likely to mistake a O & 0 or 7 & 2 which happens with Flock
Posted by KosmoCramer
Member since Dec 2007
80711 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:13 pm to
The human should be required to verify the tag manually before triggering the stop, I 100% agree with that.
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
17049 posts
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:24 pm to
quote:

Is it? What's the error rate in the officer scenario currently? (genuinely asking, I don't know).

I would say the error rate is different but the source of error is the same.

The source is NCIC and state criminal record tracking systems. If an authorized user incorrectly enters a stolen car into a system that tracks stolen cars (NCIC and similar state systems), then the same false arrest can occur.

But with the separate FLOCK system, agencies can now respond to false data quicker before the error is discovered.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram