- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1 out of 3 Flock stolen vehicle alerts were bogus.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:53 pm
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.
...
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 on 8/11/26 at 12:55 pm to Night Vision
So more times than not they were right? Sounds like a technology that should be utilized and continued to be fine tuned

quote: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
You know it is bad if the LAPD drops it.
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:55 pm to Night Vision
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 on 8/11/26 at 12:56 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Jab me harder daddy.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:57 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
A 33 percent failure rate for something this consequential isn't acceptable.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:57 pm to Night Vision
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 on 8/11/26 at 12:58 pm to Night Vision
quote:
Fears that plate-reader data could be accessed by federal immigration
Ok so now we know which way the publisher leans
Posted on 8/11/26 at 12:58 pm to DeBoar
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 on 8/11/26 at 12:58 pm to KosmoCramer
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 on 8/11/26 at 12:59 pm to Powerman
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:00 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
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 on 8/11/26 at 1:05 pm to KosmoCramer
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 on 8/11/26 at 1:08 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
2 out of 3 aren’t?
So you're saying...
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:12 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
The officer is likely required to also run the plate. That was the entire basis of my post.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:12 pm to KosmoCramer
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 on 8/11/26 at 1:13 pm to KosmoCramer
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 on 8/11/26 at 1:13 pm to Boom33
The human should be required to verify the tag manually before triggering the stop, I 100% agree with that.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 1:24 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
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.
Popular
Back to top


8









