Futurism88%

LAPD Abandons Flock Contract After Making a Horrifying Discovery 57%

By Joe Wilkins84%

7/13/2026, 1:48:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 48.6% saturation with 302 hits. Analysis detected 1,665 faulty-reasoning hits from 622 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.1% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,451 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.80% of the article peer group.

Rarely has the Los Angeles Police Department found a police toy it doesn’t love. 
The third-largest police force in the US has major Palantir contracts in place, uses sketchy apps to track minority communities, and routinely sends drones to spy on peaceful protestors . 
So when the LAPD ends a contract with a surveillance company because it thinks the technology is too dangerous, you know there’s a problem. 
Over the weekend, the police department announced it was abandoning its contract with Flock Safety, the controversial company blanketing the United States in AI-integrated license plate cameras (ALPRs). 
Though its three-year contract with Flock is just about up, the LAPD says it won’t renew the partnership, citing residents’ concerns over privacy and civil rights, ABC reported . 
“This contract is not being renewed because of serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues, particularly around privacy and the data that is being collected from these cameras,” LAPD’s chief information officer Dean Gialamas told ABC in a statement. 
“The LAPD had to make a difficult decision, in this case discontinuing using Flock services until we can get those data, privacy, security and sharing concerns ironed out through a contractual relationship.” 
The news comes just days after our sister publication The Drive ‘s Joel Feder reported how he was suddenly swarmed by armed cops while test driving a Range Rover with his wife in Minnesota. 
Officers said they had been tracking him for days using Flock’s AI-integrated cameras, which had erroneously tagged his car as stolen. 
After the latest Flock contract news broke, 404 Media revealed that a July 10 audit by the LAPD Office of the Inspector General caught the department’s ALPR cameras generating 161 false stolen-vehicle alerts in just two months  each one ending with officers pulling over an innocent driver. 
Factoring in 337 alerts which “resulted in the recovery of stolen vehicles,” the LAPD’s cameras carry an error rate of 32.3 percent, effectively giving officers a one-in-three chance at pulling an innocent person over. 
“During the review period, officers acknowledged 161 alerts as accurate license plate matches; however, subsequent investigations determined the vehicles were not stolen,” the report reads. 
“In addition to creating an inconvenience for vehicle owners, these inaccuracies can affect individual liberty interests, erode public trust, and potentially create substantial legal and financial liability concerns.” 
The OIG report notes that officers are required to “attempt to verify all records prior to conducting an investigative stop,” though it didn’t disclose how many of the 161 wrongful stops were the result of an officer’s failure to do so. 
Instead, investigators blamed license plate records it says were “not updated in a timely manner,” which “may” lead cops to “act on inaccurate or outdated information, increasing the risk of unnecessary enforcement actions, including vehicle stops and wrongful detentions, or a confrontation with serious consequences.” 
As 404 flagged, the LAPD approaches potentially stolen vehicles as “high-risk” stops. 
For the LAPD, these stops require drastic shows of force, including “calling for back up, air support, and a supervisor and ordering the suspect out of their vehicle,” the report reads. 
It doesn’t take a large language model to figure out that this is an incredibly dangerous scenario for Black people in Los Angeles, who account for 19.5 percent of those killed by the LAPD , despite making up only nine percent of the city’s population. 
Whatever way you slice it, it seems one of the most notorious police departments in the US has finally met its match. 
More on surveillance: Flock Cameras Screw Up, Swarm Innocent Man With Armed Police 
The post LAPD Abandons Flock Contract After Making a Horrifying Discovery appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.6%Joe Wilkins: 6.8%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Joe Wilkins: 6.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic12.2%This article: 7.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 3.5%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Joe Wilkins: 13.2%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.9%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 4.7%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 48.6%Joe Wilkins: 25.8%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias48.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias6.6%This article: 4.5%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem4.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.6%Joe Wilkins: 5.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority6.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.6%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.2%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope7.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.5%Joe Wilkins: 12.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization9.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.5%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon3.5%This article: 19.6%Joe Wilkins: 11.5%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion19.6%This article: 3.9%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 5.5%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.6%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof6.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.8%Joe Wilkins: 4.3%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal15.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.4%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.6%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 24.1%Joe Wilkins: 26.8%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice24.1%This article: 11.7%Joe Wilkins: 1.8%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination11.7%This article: 19.8%Joe Wilkins: 5.0%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

622 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers24%attributed speech473writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDean Gialamas • 41 words • 100.0% coverageDean Gialamas • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage404 Media • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverage404 Media • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageFuturism • 16 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

404 Media

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words40% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Politically Left Leaning B+64.1 ptsWriter: 15.9%404 Media: 80.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.7 ptsWriter: 31.7%404 Media: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.4 ptsWriter: 15.4%404 Media: 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.