Flock’s Transparency Problem: A Closer Look at Its Abuse-Preventing Tool

Flock’s recent announcements about its efforts to curb abuse of its automated license plate camera reader systems have raised more questions than answers. The company’s push for greater accountability in law enforcement use of its technology is a welcome development, but the lack of transparency surrounding its new tool, Audit Assistance, raises significant concerns.

The introduction of Audit Assistance has been touted by Flock as a major step forward in preventing abuse. This tool allegedly detects abnormal activity and flags it for administrator review. However, despite its importance, Flock has refused to provide any detailed explanation of how this tool works. Instead, executives have offered vague descriptions of its capabilities that only serve to highlight the mystery surrounding its inner workings.

Ashley Haber, Flock’s head of trust and compliance, described Audit Assistance as flagging “what may look like an odd search history from a specific user.” Co-founder Paige Todd claimed the tool flags unusual patterns early. However, neither Haber nor Todd provided any information about what these patterns are or how they are identified.

The lack of transparency surrounding Audit Assistance is not just a technical issue; it’s also a trust problem. If Flock can’t explain how its tool works, how can its customers – and the public at large – trust that it’s actually doing anything to prevent abuse? The company’s statements about the effectiveness of the tool only serve to underscore this point. For instance, when TechCrunch asked for statistics on the tool’s performance, Flock refused to provide any.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has spoken out against Audit Assistance, calling it “window dressing” that doesn’t address the root issue of abuse. The ACLU is right; unless we know how the tool works and what data it uses to identify abnormal activity, we can’t trust its claims about effectiveness. Even if Audit Assistance does work, law enforcement agencies will likely find ways to circumvent it, as Cooper Quintin, a security researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out.

Flock’s history of abuse by its customers is well-documented. In recent years, numerous incidents have come to light involving the misuse of Flock’s technology. For example, three former Georgia sheriff’s deputies were arrested and accused of using Flock cameras to stalk people with whom they had a “personal relationship at the time.” This incident highlights the need for greater accountability in law enforcement use of surveillance technology.

Unless Flock can provide more transparency about its tools and processes, it’s hard to take its claims seriously. The lack of trust in Flock’s system is not just a problem for the public; it also undermines the company’s own efforts to promote accountability. What’s clear from this controversy is that Flock has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously as a leader in promoting transparency and accountability in law enforcement use of surveillance technology.

Without greater transparency and accountability, we can’t trust these technologies to serve their intended purpose. The future of surveillance technology is complex, involving multiple stakeholders – law enforcement agencies, tech companies like Flock, and the public at large. As this debate continues, one thing is clear: Flock must provide more information about how its tools work, including Audit Assistance, if it wants to demonstrate a genuine commitment to addressing the problem of abuse.