Los Angeles Police Department Ends Flock Safety Contract Over Civil Liberties Concerns

The Los Angeles Police Department has allowed its contract with surveillance technology provider Flock Safety to expire, citing serious concerns over civil liberties and privacy. TechCrunch reports that the LAPD, one of Flock's largest government customers, made the decision following internal review and public pressure over the use of automated licence plate recognition technology and the potential for mass surveillance. Flock Safety provides networked cameras that capture and analyse vehicle movements, storing data in a centralised platform accessible to law enforcement agencies. The LAPD's decision reflects growing scrutiny of surveillance technology procurement, data retention practices, and the balance between public safety and individual privacy. The move is significant given the scale of Flock's deployment in the US and the increasing use of similar technology by UK police forces and private sector organisations for security and access control purposes.

Why this matters for UK organisations

For UK businesses, particularly those in property management, logistics, retail, and corporate security, the LAPD's decision highlights the importance of understanding the privacy and civil liberties implications of surveillance technology before procurement and deployment. Automated licence plate recognition, facial recognition, and similar technologies are increasingly used for access control, perimeter security, and operational monitoring. However, the legal, ethical, and reputational risks associated with these systems are also increasing, particularly where data is retained indefinitely, shared with third parties, or used in ways that individuals may not reasonably expect. The UK's data protection framework requires organisations to demonstrate lawful basis, necessity, and proportionality for surveillance activities, and the Information Commissioner's Office has published guidance on the use of biometric and location tracking technologies. The LAPD's decision reflects a broader trend in which public and private sector organisations are being held to account for the privacy impact of surveillance technology, and where procurement decisions made without sufficient consideration of data protection and civil liberties can lead to reputational damage, legal challenge, and operational disruption when contracts are ended or systems are decommissioned.

What to review

UK organisations should review the surveillance and monitoring technologies in use across physical and digital environments, ensuring that data protection impact assessments are current, that retention periods are justified, and that individuals are informed about how their data is being collected and used. Many organisations deploy surveillance technology for legitimate security purposes but do not revisit the governance, retention, and transparency arrangements once the system is operational. Ensuring that procurement decisions consider privacy by design, that contracts with technology providers are clear about data ownership and access, and that regular reviews take place are all practical steps that reduce legal and reputational risk. Organisations should also consider whether the data collected by surveillance systems is necessary and proportionate to the security objective, whether individuals are informed through clear signage and privacy notices, and whether data is retained for longer than necessary. Where surveillance technology is provided by third-party vendors, organisations should ensure that contracts specify data retention periods, access controls, and data protection responsibilities, and that the vendor's practices align with UK data protection requirements. This is an area where legal, security, and operational teams need to work together to ensure that surveillance technology is deployed and managed in a way that balances security needs with privacy rights and regulatory compliance.

Source: TechCrunch