Engadget42%

Los Angeles law enforcement will stop using Flock cameras 24%

By Anna Washenko55%

7/13/2026, 1:02:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Burden of Proof, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.2% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 216 faulty-reasoning hits from 207 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.7% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,715 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.40% of the article peer group.

The Los Angeles Police Department has suspended its use of controversial surveillance tech from Flock Safety. 
The city's law enforcement had signed a three-year deal with Flock in 2023 that expired over the weekend. 
Flock operates 138 cameras in LA, and they are ostensibly used to check vehicle license plates. 
While that information could help law enforcement to find cars that are stolen or registered to fugitives, city leaders questioned the privacy controls for the data collected by the company. 
Flock has reportedly shared its data with state and federal authorities, including the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, even though California has legislation to restrict what details companies can share with government officials. 
"The sticking point is around having very clear terms about who owns the data, what happens with the data once they collect it," LAPD Chief Information officer Dean Gialamas told the Los Angeles Times. 
He said the department will stop using Flock "Until we can get those data, privacy, security and sharing concerns ironed out through a contractual relationship." 
In addition to the privacy issues around Flock sharing data with immigration authorities, the company's cameras have also been exposed as having multiple cybersecurity flaws. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.1%Anna Washenko: 4.3%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.1%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.0%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.0%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.4%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.7%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 6.4%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.2%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.9%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 5.7%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 2.7%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.2%Anna Washenko: 9.3%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias36.2%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.0%Engadget: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.1%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.0%Engadget: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.8%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 3.2%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.2%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.4%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.3%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 2.2%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 2.7%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.1%Anna Washenko: 9.4%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.1%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.1%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.2%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.3%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.4%Engadget: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.6%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 16.4%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof16.4%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.7%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.4%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.7%Anna Washenko: 3.2%Engadget: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.7%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.1%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground12.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 5.0%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.8%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.7%Anna Washenko: 11.4%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice7.7%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.6%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 2.9%Engadget: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

207 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker29%attributed speech148writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageDean Gialamas • 34 words • 0.0% coverageDean Gialamas • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dean Gialamas

42%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words100% of attributed speech61% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.8 ptsWriter: 10.8%Dean Gialamas: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.