Staff Reports
West Virginia lawmakers have put Flock Safety on notice. The state House Committee on Government Organization has formally summoned company representatives to testify under oath at a public hearing on Nov. 9. Lawmakers say written answers so far were vague and incomplete, and they want direct, on‑the‑record answers about employee access, vendors, accuracy and possible exposures of camera data.
Nov. 9 Hearing: Lawmakers Put Flock on the Hot Seat
The committee, chaired by Delegate Chris Phillips, sent a detailed Oct. 12 letter demanding witnesses who can answer specific technical and security questions. The point is simple: if a private company runs a nationwide network of license plate readers (ALPR) and camera streams used by police, the public and elected officials deserve clear answers about who can see that data and whether it has ever been mishandled.
Sharp Questions: What the Legislature Wants to Know
The letter lists exact demands: counts of unauthorized raw‑video access by year and product, results of investigations into any incidents, whether Flock ever disciplined employees for improper access, which non‑U.S. vendors annotate images for machine learning, year‑by‑year false‑positive and accuracy figures for ALPR matches, and logs showing which employees can view live or recorded feeds. As Delegate Tristan Leavitt put it, “Flock Safety still hasn’t told us things like what contractor they use outside of the U.S. to analyze images or whether they’ve ever had to discipline any of their own employees for improperly accessing data.” That is not a wishlist — it’s basic oversight.
Flock’s Response — Denials and “Limited Exposures”
Flock’s Oct. 9 written reply, signed by Dan Haley, Chief Legal Officer, says the company’s central cloud has “never been breached or accessed by an unauthorized external party” and describes a prior problem as a vendor configuration error that briefly exposed a small number of live video streams (not ALPR data). Flock also touted security measures, accuracy testing, and the claim that it does not run facial recognition. Those statements are the company’s position — but lawmakers rightly note many of the committee’s requested year‑by‑year details and employee‑access logs were not provided on the record.
Why This Hearing Will Matter
This is more than a theater of bureaucracy. Courts and privacy groups are already questioning whether broad historical ALPR searches require a warrant, as seen in recent federal rulings. Cities and counties are reconsidering contracts. If Flock can’t or won’t produce clear documentation about employee access, vendor roles, and error rates, state legislatures will have to set the boundaries. Conservatives who back law enforcement should want tools that work and are tightly controlled. Voters who worry about privacy should demand the same. Nov. 9 will show whether Flock answers the questions under oath, or whether the company’s “trust us” line gets another chapter in the oversight file. Keep an eye on that hearing — because sworn testimony is where vague PR meets accountability.
