404 Media48%

How Cops Use Flock to Track People, Not Cars 85%

By Joseph Cox67%

7/16/2026, 6:56:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 48.1% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 547 faulty-reasoning hits from 187 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.3% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,438 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.30% of the article peer group.

Police departments around the country have used Flock cameras at least hundreds of times to search for specific people, not cars, using searches such as “heavy-set male with a black and white hat,” “person on skateboard,” and “person wearing orange vest and construction hat,” according to data reviewed by 404 Media. 
Sometimes searches reference a target’s race or signs of their political affiliation. 
The searches highlight that while most people associate Flock cameras with scanning license plates and tracking vehicles, some of the cameras are also capable of following the movements of particular people or groups of people. 
Flock’s nationwide network of cameras lets police officers in one state search for a vehicle across many other states at once; the people searches do a similar thing, typically on a smaller scale, sometimes querying many hundreds of cameras at once. 
These are called “FreeForm” searches, and allow cops to use Flock’s system as though they would use a search engine, with Flock’s AI and image recognition interpreting what footage and which people are relevant to a police officer’s search. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.3%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 27.3%Joseph Cox: 5.7%404 Media: 3.8%Availability Heuristic27.3%This article: 18.7%Joseph Cox: 0.8%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic18.7%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.4%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 21.9%Joseph Cox: 1.6%404 Media: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias21.9%This article: 44.4%Joseph Cox: 13.2%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect44.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 20.9%Joseph Cox: 0.5%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.1%404 Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 3.5%404 Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Joseph Cox: 20.0%404 Media: 11.5%Negativity Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.4%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.8%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.7%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.5%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.1%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 48.1%Joseph Cox: 4.0%404 Media: 3.3%Appeal to Authority48.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.4%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 9.5%404 Media: 7.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.1%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 6.3%404 Media: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.8%404 Media: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.7%404 Media: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.3%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.2%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 40.6%Joseph Cox: 4.6%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)40.6%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.3%Joseph Cox: 4.8%404 Media: 2.6%Unattributed Quote27.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.7%404 Media: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 32.1%Joseph Cox: 9.8%404 Media: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice32.1%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.2%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.5%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 7.7%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

187 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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