Summary (tl;dr)

A new website, "haveibeenflocked.com," is trending as it allows individuals to check if their license plates have been searched within the extensive network of Flock Safety surveillance cameras, intensifying public scrutiny over mass surveillance, data privacy, and alleged misuse by law enforcement.

Essential Background

Flock Safety, a company founded in 2017 and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, manufactures and operates automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras and other surveillance systems. These cameras, deployed in over 5,000 communities across 49 U.S. states, capture license plates, vehicle characteristics, and timestamps, compiling this data into a vast, searchable database. The system is utilized by law enforcement agencies, neighborhood associations, and private property owners. Critics, including organizations like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), have consistently raised privacy concerns, arguing that Flock's technology creates extensive location records on individuals not suspected of any crime, impacting civil liberties.

The Full Story

The recent surge in interest around "haveibeenflocked.com" is driving the trend for these keywords. This website enables users to enter their license plate number to discover if it has been queried by operators within the Flock system. The information provided by the website is derived from "audit logs" that track searches made in the Flock system, which are obtained through public records requests (FOIA). While the dataset is acknowledged as incomplete and often redacted, its existence has brought the abstract concept of widespread surveillance into a tangible reality for many. Flock Safety recently announced changes to address privacy concerns, including shortening the default data retention period from 30 days to 7 days, unless data is part of an ongoing investigation, and introducing a voluntary "Audit Assistance" feature to flag unusual activity. Despite these measures, questions persist regarding their effectiveness in preventing misuse.

Why It Matters

The popularity of "haveibeenflocked.com" underscores significant and growing public concern over mass surveillance and the privacy implications of ALPR technology. Documented instances of law enforcement officers misusing Flock's system for personal reasons, such as stalking ex-partners, highlight the potential for abuse. Furthermore, concerns about the accuracy of the cameras have emerged, with reports of misidentified plates leading to unwarranted police stops and confrontations. The sharing of license plate data across jurisdictions, sometimes with federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has raised alarms about civil liberties, particularly in "sanctuary states" or concerning sensitive issues like abortion access. The lack of transparency surrounding camera locations, data retention policies, and data-sharing agreements further fuels public distrust and advocates for increased oversight. The ability for individuals to directly check if their vehicle's movements have been searched empowers them and brings the abstract concept of surveillance into a personal, tangible reality, potentially strengthening grassroots movements advocating for stricter regulations or the removal of these cameras.

Geographic Location

• Atlanta, Georgia, United States (Flock Safety company headquarters)
• Norfolk, Virginia, United States (Federal lawsuit filed against Police Department over Flock ALPRs)
• Roseville, California, United States (Driver repeatedly stopped by police due to Flock misidentifying license plate character)
• Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California, United States (City disabled Flock cameras after unauthorized data sharing with federal agencies)
• Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California, United States (LAPD suspended use of Flock cameras due to privacy concerns and audit findings; protests held against expanding surveillance)
• Houston, Harris County, Texas, United States (Flock cameras widely used; some vandalized; local officers investigated for abusing technology)
• Pasadena, Harris County, Texas, United States (Police officers investigated for abusing Flock technology)
• Baytown, Harris County, Texas, United States (Police officers investigated for abusing Flock technology)
• League City, Galveston County, Texas, United States (City considered putting the use of Flock cameras on a ballot)
• Kansas, United States (Police used ALPRs to pursue a man who wrote a critical op-ed about the department)
• Colorado, United States (Police officer wrongfully accused a woman of theft based on a Flock hit)
• Massachusetts, United States (Police departments statewide have contracts with Flock; concerns over undermining Shield Law)
• Southern Oregon, Oregon, United States (Local police collaborating with federal law enforcement via Flock, despite sanctuary state status)