Flock “can’t tech its way out” of the stalker cop problem, experts say

专家称：Flock 无法仅靠技术手段解决警察跟踪骚扰问题

On Thursday, Flock announced plans to require all agencies with access to license plate reader data to use a safety tool that automatically detects abnormal activity and locks out cops who abuse their access to stalk people they know in their personal lives. 周四，Flock 宣布计划要求所有能够访问车牌识别数据的机构必须使用一种安全工具。该工具可自动检测异常活动，并锁定那些滥用权限、跟踪骚扰私人关系对象的警察。

Flock’s audit assistance tool suspends access when user activity “meets defined criteria for abnormal behavior,” Flock said. The suspension can only be lifted by administrator review, with the goal being “to intervene before misuse becomes recurring or widespread.” Flock 表示，当用户活动“符合定义的异常行为标准”时，其审计辅助工具会暂停该用户的访问权限。该暂停状态只能通过管理员审核来解除，其目标是“在滥用行为变得频繁或广泛之前进行干预”。

The tech has been available as an optional free feature since April, but only a third of agencies had opted in, Flock said. However, after a single Georgia sheriff’s office used the tool and subsequently arrested three cops who were separately using Flock cameras to stalk acquaintances, Flock CEO Garrett Langley told The Verge that dozens of incidents like these helped his company realize they made a mistake and had to act to correct it. Flock 表示，这项技术自四月起就作为可选的免费功能提供，但只有三分之一的机构选择启用。然而，在佐治亚州一家治安官办公室使用该工具并随后逮捕了三名利用 Flock 摄像头跟踪熟人的警察后，Flock 首席执行官 Garrett Langley 告诉 The Verge，数十起此类事件促使公司意识到他们犯了错，必须采取行动进行纠正。

“This is such an obvious way to curb abuse,” Langley said, while admitting that “we got this one wrong. We should make it a requirement.” “这是遏制滥用行为显而易见的方法，”Langley 说道，同时承认“我们在这件事上做错了。我们应该将其设为强制性要求。”

No data on creepy cop-blocking tool

关于拦截“变态警察”工具的数据缺失

According to Flock, the Georgia case is not unique, and “identification of abuse predictably went up” for agencies that chose to activate the tool. However, experts caution that there is no data to show how well the tool works to detect nefarious logins or malicious activity. 据 Flock 称，佐治亚州的案例并非个例，对于选择启用该工具的机构来说，“滥用行为的识别率确实如预期般上升了”。然而，专家警告称，目前没有任何数据表明该工具在检测非法登录或恶意活动方面的有效性。

In a press release, the ACLU recommended that an independent evaluator should review Flock’s tech. Until then, the ACLU warned that there is “no evidence that the tool works consistently” to address what The Washington Post found was a growing pattern of stalker cops using Flock cameras to spy on their exes. As of now, the ACLU said, “We don’t know if the tool is a real security measure or just window dressing.” 美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）在一份新闻稿中建议，应由独立的评估机构对 Flock 的技术进行审查。在此之前，ACLU 警告称，没有证据表明该工具能持续有效地解决问题。此前《华盛顿邮报》发现，警察利用 Flock 摄像头监视前任的现象正日益增多。ACLU 表示，截至目前，“我们不知道该工具究竟是真正的安全措施，还是仅仅是装点门面。”

Additionally concerning—although Langley predicted to The Verge that “you are going to see more officers fired and more officers arrested for abusing police power”—experts warn that the public will only know the tool is working if agencies are fully transparent about how much abuse is found. “Unless we know the number of officers misusing the system, we cannot conclude if Flock and its auditing tools are catching 95 percent of violators or 5 percent,” the ACLU said in a post analyzing Flock’s changes. 此外，尽管 Langley 向 The Verge 预测“你将会看到更多警察因滥用职权而被解雇和逮捕”，但专家警告称，只有当机构完全公开发现的滥用案例数量时，公众才能知道该工具是否真正有效。ACLU 在一篇分析 Flock 变革的文章中指出：“除非我们知道滥用系统的警察人数，否则我们无法断定 Flock 及其审计工具究竟是抓住了 95% 的违规者，还是仅仅抓住了 5%。”

Former San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin told SFGate that Flock’s changes “may not be enough.” “The reforms may catch an officer misusing the tech, but the decision to discipline them falls on local agencies and ultimately falls on whether the agencies are really motivated to take corrective action,” SFGate reported. 前旧金山地区检察官 Chesa Boudin 告诉 SFGate，Flock 的改革“可能还不够”。据 SFGate 报道，“这些改革或许能抓到滥用技术的警察，但纪律处分的决定权在于地方机构，最终取决于这些机构是否有真正的动力去采取纠正措施。”

Historically, police misconduct is often handled quietly internally, and Boudin pointed out that this makes it easy for cops to conceal bad Flock behavior. He also noted that pursuing criminal charges for misusing internal police tech is already difficult in states without specific statutes outlawing the abuses. “It’s very difficult for anybody outside the department to know about it, and very easy for the department to sweep it under the rug,” Boudin said. “Even with the best intentions from Flock, it’s just not enough to ensure accountability. Most likely, it seems the public will find out about abuses through evidence shared in lawsuits or other criminal investigations, since agencies may not be willing to voluntarily disclose cases that could draw unwanted negative attention. 从历史上看，警察的不当行为往往在内部被悄悄处理，Boudin 指出，这使得警察很容易掩盖其对 Flock 的滥用行为。他还指出，在那些没有明确法律禁止此类滥用行为的州，对滥用内部警用技术的行为提起刑事诉讼本身就很困难。“部门外的人很难知情，而部门内部却很容易将其掩盖，”Boudin 说。“即使 Flock 出于好意，这也不足以确保问责制。最有可能的情况是，公众通过诉讼或其他刑事调查中披露的证据发现这些滥用行为，因为机构可能不愿意主动披露那些会招致负面关注的案件。”

“You can have all the technology in the world to oversee and monitor police behavior, but that technology and that evidence is not enough if there’s no political will to actually have consequences for people who break the rules,” Boudin said. “That’s the bigger challenge with police accountability.” “你可以拥有世界上所有的技术来监督和监控警察行为，但如果没有政治意愿去真正惩罚那些违规者，这些技术和证据是远远不够的，”Boudin 说。“这才是警察问责制面临的更大挑战。”

Detector may not flag lying cops

检测器可能无法标记撒谎的警察

Another change that Flock introduced to help solve the stalker cop problem includes requiring case numbers for searches. However, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Saira Hussain, told SFGate that it seems trivially easy for cops to get around that requirement without triggering the audit assistance tool. A motivated bad actor could seemingly lie and give any case number, then conduct searches related to stalking romantic partners without triggering suspension, she suggested. “That’s a significant concern, and I don’t think you, as Flock, are going to be able to tech your way out of it,” Hussain said. Flock 为解决警察跟踪问题引入的另一项变革是要求搜索时必须提供案件编号。然而，电子前沿基金会（EFF）的高级律师 Saira Hussain 告诉 SFGate，警察似乎可以轻而易举地绕过这一要求，而不会触发审计辅助工具。她指出，一个心怀不轨的人完全可以撒谎提供任意案件编号，然后进行与跟踪恋爱对象相关的搜索，而不会触发系统暂停。“这是一个重大的隐患，我不认为作为 Flock，你们能仅靠技术手段解决这个问题，”Hussain 说道。

The ACLU agreed, noting that the case number requirement was a previously optional feature that rolled out in July 2025 and seemed to do little to prevent police abuse when cops can manipulate the case numbers to suit their agendas. “This leaves the public wondering how making an ineffective voluntary security measure mandatory will improve its functionality,” the ACLU said. ACLU 对此表示赞同，并指出案件编号要求此前是一项可选功能，于 2025 年 7 月推出。当警察可以为了自己的目的操纵案件编号时，该功能似乎对防止警察滥用职权作用甚微。“这让公众不禁怀疑，将一项无效的自愿安全措施变为强制性措施，究竟如何能提升其功能，”ACLU 表示。

It matters whether the changes meaningfully block cops from stalking, as Flock continues to expand police access to more cameras in the US. Currently, Flock cameras are posted in every state but Alaska, leveraged by 7,000 law enforcement agencies, the New York Times reported. In total, that’s about 40 percent of all police departments in the US, and the ACLU noted that the same privacy concerns for Flock cameras exist for competitors’ automated license plate readers, which are signing contracts in areas where Flock isn’t. 这些变革是否能真正阻止警察的跟踪行为至关重要，因为 Flock 正在继续扩大美国警方对其摄像头的访问权限。据《纽约时报》报道，目前除阿拉斯加州外，Flock 摄像头已遍布美国各州，被 7,000 个执法机构使用。这总计覆盖了美国约 40% 的警察部门。ACLU 指出，Flock 摄像头所引发的隐私担忧同样存在于竞争对手的自动车牌识别系统中，这些竞争对手正在 Flock 未覆盖的地区签署合同。

While the ACLU acknowledged the problem goes beyond Flock, the group accused Flock of obscuring the problem by announcing changes that “seem to be a thinly veiled PR attempt to counter communities’ genuine privacy concerns with its mass surveillance system with largely hollow security promises, rather than an earnest effort to address them.” Pointing to a database compiled by the Institute for Justice—which maps out where police Flock misuse and stalking are happening in the US—the ACLU said that “serious concerns” remain. 虽然 ACLU 承认这个问题不仅仅局限于 Flock，但该组织指责 Flock 通过宣布这些变革来掩盖问题。ACLU 称，这些变革“似乎是一种掩人耳目的公关尝试，旨在用空洞的安全承诺来应对社区对其大规模监控系统产生的真实隐私担忧，而非真正努力解决问题。”ACLU 指向了由司法研究所（Institute for Justice）汇编的一个数据库——该数据库绘制了美国各地警察滥用 Flock 系统和跟踪骚扰的地点——并表示“严重的担忧”依然存在。