Prices of public records tracking cops\u2019 use of Flock go up as backlash swells.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
By Ashley Belanger<\/p>\n\n\n\n As bipartisan backlash against Flock grows<\/a>, some cities are asking anti-surveillance advocates and media outlets to pay eye-popping fees\u2014including charging tens of thousands or even millions\u2014to get information about how police departments are using and potentially abusing AI-enabled camera systems that track every vehicle that passes them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Monday, the Texas Tribune reported<\/a> that city officials in a Fort Worth suburb, North Richland Hills, asked one group to pay $2.3 million before it would fulfill a public records request for Flock data. To reach that high fee, officials claimed that searching \u201cabout a terabyte worth of communications about errors, misuse, and effectiveness of the Flock system\u201d would take approximately 14 years of labor at a rate of $15 per hour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Phil Mynona, who filed the request using a pseudonym on behalf of his group, the Texas Privacy Coalition, told the Tribune that the fee seemed \u201cludicrous\u201d and designed to stifle his public records searches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mynona has sought similar records from more than 200 law enforcement agencies across the US, and he said it was impossible to predict how cities assessed fees for Flock records. Some cities provided more than 400,000 pages of documents for free, while others charged $5,000. Other groups, including a Houston news station called KPRC, have seen officials quote up to $121,000 for Flock records, the Tribune reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The high price tags may be hiding data that anti-surveillance groups note have triggered audits, arrests, and changes in how law enforcement uses cameras, including decisions to get rid of cameras. Many cops have been found using the cameras to stalk strangers and people in their personal lives, and so far, Flock has yet to introduce meaningful reforms to confront its stalker cop problem<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Texas is a perfect example of how increasing transparency about police use of Flock cameras works to protect the public from invasive searches that serve no lawful purpose. Last week, an ex-Texas cop, Zachary Anthony Klein, reportedly<\/a> pled guilty to 100 felony counts of misuse of official information, which he agreed to do in exchange for the state not pursuing charges related to stalking several people. Klein\u2019s Flock abuse\u2014along with another cop\u2019s\u2014was outed after USA Today submitted a public records request that sparked a probe, then his arrest. Disturbed by the case, Texas Governor Greg Abbott quickly halted Flock funding and stopped issuing permits, the Tribune noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally concerning are officials who deny requests outright. Consider that the Tribune reported that the state Department of Public Safety has sought help from \u201cthe Attorney General\u2019s Office to allow it to withhold the entirety\u201d of Flock data that the Texas Tribune has requested. And that denial came after DPS had already responded to an identical request seeking data from prior weeks, the Tribune noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Flock maintains that its automated license plate readers (ALPR) are designed for public safety, while courts have largely agreed that cops can reasonably access Flock databases without infringing Fourth Amendment rights. But ongoingly, there are cases dominating the headlines that show a widening web of privacy risks, including not just illegal surveillance by police but also hackers or bad actors improperly accessing data that can be used to track people\u2019s daily movements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Courts may start to rethink their stance on Flock, with one federal judge in Oklahoma last week ruling that a cop conducted an unconstitutional search when searching a Flock database simply because a woman\u2019s license plate was from California,\u201d 404 Media reported<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That judge, Sara Hill, argued that Flock\u2019s network \u201cis a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance,\u201d with its ALPR technology creating a \u201clarge-scale, dragnet-type surveillance system\u201d that should require a warrant to search.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Flock spokesperson told 404 Media that the company had nothing to do with the case but expects Hill\u2019s ruling to be an outlier that will likely be appealed and overturned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.arstechnica.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/GettyImages-2288945998-1024x648.jpg\")
Flock misuse recently ruled unconstitutional<\/h2>\n\n\n\n