Flock is falling out of favor with police departments 40%

By Katherine Li11%

7/14/2026, 12:01:55 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Authority, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 27.4% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 1,186 faulty-reasoning hits from 617 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.1% and a BS Rank of 40% (13,180 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.20% of the article peer group.

LAPD said it won't renew the expired agreement with Flock Safety due to privacy and civil liberties concerns. 
Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images 
LAPD lets contract with Flock Safety expire over privacy and civil liberties concerns. 
LAPD was a major Flock customer with 138 pole-mounted cameras across Los Angeles. 
Flock's license plate reading technology has made mistakes with serious consequences. 
Flock Safety is hitting a rough patch with one of its biggest customers. 
The Los Angeles Police Department let its deal with the surveillance company expire over the past weekend, a spokesperson of the department told Business Insider on Monday. 
"We wanted to address some of the civil liberty and civil rights concerns and ensure that there is clarity over the terms regarding privacy, data ownership, and security," the LAPD spokesperson said. 
The LAPD is among Flock's largest government customers. 
The Atlanta-based company operates a nationwide network of more than 80,000 cameras that scan license plates to help law enforcement agencies trace vehicles. 
An LAPD audit report released earlier in July said the department had a three-year agreement with Flock, which operated 138 pole-mounted cameras across Los Angeles since July 2023. 
LAPD's audit cited concerns that federal agencies could have access to data collected by Flock and that federal immigration enforcement could seek access to it. 
The data-sharing arrangement was first reported in October 2025 by the University of Washington's Center for Human Rights, which said that Flock had implemented an information-sharing pilot program that allowed federal agencies to access license plate data collected by local law enforcement agencies without those agencies' knowledge or consent. 
The LAPD isn't alone in rethinking its association with Flock 
A growing number of police jurisdictions have walked away from Flock since 2025, including Mountain View, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara County, South Pasadena, Flagstaff, and Hillsborough, North Carolina. 
In some places, breaking up with Flock has proven harder than signing up. 
In Dayton, Ohio, city workers recently covered the company's cameras with trash bags after an internal review found what officials described as "egregious violations" of city policy, including thousands of immigration-related searches. 
In Evanston, Illinois, officials said Flock reinstalled cameras after the city had moved to remove them, prompting a cease-and-desist letter before the devices were ultimately taken down months later. 
Business Insider's Nicole Einbinder previously reported that mistakes made by Flock's automated license plate readers have led to innocent drivers being stopped at gunpoint, mauled by police dogs, or jailed after their vehicles were incorrectly flagged. 
One man in Toledo was arrested and suffered serious injuries after Flock's camera misread the "7" on his plate for a "2" and flagged the vehicle to the police as stolen. 
The setbacks come after years of rapid expansion for Flock, which has become a dominant player in the automated license plate reader market since its launch in 2017. 
Earlier in 2026, Amazon's Ring also canceled a planned partnership with Flock days after a Ring advertisement aired during the Super Bowl sparked widespread backlash. 
In a separate incident, US Attorney Theodore S. 
Hertzberg announced federal charges against a Texas man on Monday for allegedly leaving antisemitic and homophobic threats in Flock's company voicemail inbox. 
The voice message also accused the company of "breaking the Constitution." 
Flock Safety's spokesperson told Business Insider that the company will have ongoing discussions with LAPD to address "misconceptions" that led to the "disappointing pause" and that it hopes to resume its "successful partnership" with LAPD soon. 
"While this latest development comes as a surprise," the Flock spokesperson said, "We remain committed to continuing our active and ongoing conversations with LAPD to find a path forward." 
Read the original article on Business Insider 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.9%Katherine Li: 1.0%Business Insider: 2.5%Confirmation Bias2.9%This article: 4.5%Katherine Li: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.5%This article: 27.4%Katherine Li: 3.8%Business Insider: 3.4%Availability Heuristic27.4%This article: 3.7%Katherine Li: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 4.5%Katherine Li: 0.6%Business Insider: 0.9%Hindsight Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.1%Business Insider: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Katherine Li: 6.8%Business Insider: 5.0%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.1%Katherine Li: 0.6%Business Insider: 0.8%Status Quo Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Katherine Li: 1.9%Business Insider: 3.1%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 4.7%Katherine Li: 1.0%Business Insider: 1.6%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 25.8%Katherine Li: 5.8%Business Insider: 4.6%Negativity Bias25.8%This article: 10.5%Katherine Li: 1.2%Business Insider: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias10.5%This article: 3.6%Katherine Li: 0.8%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 1.2%Business Insider: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Katherine Li: 3.3%Business Insider: 3.0%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Katherine Li: 1.3%Business Insider: 1.3%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.7%Katherine Li: 3.2%Business Insider: 3.3%Appeal to Authority17.7%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.4%Business Insider: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Katherine Li: 2.2%Business Insider: 4.0%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.2%Katherine Li: 0.8%Business Insider: 0.7%Bandwagon6.2%This article: 1.8%Katherine Li: 2.3%Business Insider: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion1.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.3%Katherine Li: 1.9%Business Insider: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.3%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.0%Katherine Li: 3.0%Business Insider: 3.6%Anecdotal24.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 1.4%Business Insider: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%Katherine Li: 0.8%Business Insider: 1.2%Unattributed Quote7.6%This article: 5.2%Katherine Li: 0.8%Business Insider: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 3.7%Business Insider: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.1%Business Insider: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Li: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Katherine Li: 0.2%Business Insider: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.1%

617 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers52%attributed speech299writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 18 words • 100.0% coverageGetty Images • 3 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 27 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Police Department • 25 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Washington's Center for Human Rights • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageNicole Einbinder • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTheodore S. Hertzberg • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageFlock Safety • 36 words • 0.0% coverageFlock Safety • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words15% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%University of Washington's Center for Human Rights: 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.