News & Resources

Two Days After OKC Renewed, an Oklahoma Police Chief Killed His Own Flock Contract Mid-Meeting

The Marietta City Council called a special meeting on August 20, 2026 with one item on the agenda: whether to engage Flock Safety. Police Chief Brett Harris opened it asking the council to keep the five trial cameras. Then a Flock representative, joining by Zoom, told the room the company retains camera data indefinitely. Harris stopped the meeting. “Folks, we're not moving forward any further. Marietta Police Department, Marietta city limits won't have Flock cameras,” he announced. The department, he explained, had agreed to a 30-day limit: “They're retaining data indefinitely, and that's exactly what our spectators complained about - that the data doesn't disappear like they say it does.” The council voted the measure down unanimously and the room applauded. Resident Jeanette Perez, who had spoken against it earlier: “We're slowly losing our fundamental rights by agreeing to these search and seizures.” Harris's closing line was “This system is not for Marietta, Oklahoma.” Read it against what happened in Oklahoma City forty-eight hours earlier. Same vendor, same product, same state. One council was told in open session that retention runs forever and voted it down on the spot. The other renewed 5 to 3 and was told it could not see the list of 109 agencies that receive its data. The question this raises for OKC is not whether other towns are ahead of us. It is what our council was told about retention before it voted. In fairness: Harris said afterward he is researching other sensor technology “that is supported by the community,” so Marietta rejected Flock, not every tool.

Council Renews the Flock Contract Over a Room That Opposed It

On August 18, 2026, the Oklahoma City Council voted 5 to 3 to renew the Flock contract (Ward 8's Mark Stonecipher was absent). The three no votes came from the members who engaged residents all along: James Cooper (Ward 2), JoBeth Hamon (Ward 6), and Camal Pennington (Ward 7). The yes votes came from Mayor David Holt and Council members Bradley Carter (Ward 1), Katrina Avers (Ward 3), Todd Stone (Ward 4), and Matthew Hinkle (Ward 5); aside from Stone, not one of them explained their vote. More than two dozen residents signed up to speak, and not one spoke in favor. The only change written into the contract is a narrow amendment giving the city, not Flock, the sole power to share data with federal agencies. The 30-to-7-day retention cut and the shutoff of Flock's national sharing are steps Chief Ron Bacy said his department is taking, not contract terms, and he told the council the department can “turn it on for significant incidents on a case-by-case basis.” Bacy also credited the technology with recovering 1,280 vehicles, locating 210 missing people, and aiding 60 murder cases, figures the department cannot substantiate on its own written record: it told a records requester in July that it keeps nothing linking Flock searches to case outcomes (OCPD-10088). Councilman James Cooper met the effectiveness pitch with Oklahoma's own history: “Does everyone remember how we caught McVeigh? ... It was good old-fashioned police work when they pulled him over on the interstate ... Because he did not have a license plate. The very thing this technology supposedly helps us capture people with.” Before voting no, Pennington put it plainly: “it does not change my mind about us continuing this contract with Flock, and I think it should end.” The renewal runs one year and is up again in 2027. The demand has not changed: end the contract, remove the cameras, and sign no replacement vendor.

Flock's New Safeguards Only Work If Departments Enforce Them. Four Days Later, OKC Renewed.

This is not a civil liberties group. ASIS International has been the principal professional association for security practitioners since 1955. Its magazine, Security Management, examined the accountability package Flock announced on August 13 and put the catch in its own headline: the new features are "Dependent on Customer Enforcement." Reporter Megan Gates writes that the changes "will depend on actual customer enforcement to be effective at addressing misuse and abuse." Flock declined to make an executive available for the story and referred the magazine to the CEO's blog post.

Read the announced features against what Oklahoma City heard four days later. Flock says it will require customers to use its Audit Assistance tool to flag abnormal activity for administrator review by the end of 2026, and will require case codes for database searches "except for in emergencies." At the August 18 council meeting, Chief Bacy described a continuous AI audit as something the department has, and confirmed that officers are not required to enter a case number, pointing to fast-moving situations. The vendor's emergency carve-out and the department's justification are the same sentence. The retention cut from 30 days to seven that OKC heard about is also on Flock's list: a company-wide default, not a local concession.

The sharpest criticism comes from a lawyer for police chiefs. Eric R. Atstupenas, general counsel of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and immediate past chair of the IACP Legal Officers Section, describes exactly the arrangement OKC just renewed: "data in a wide network is governed by the weakest policy in it and accountability diffuses." Oklahoma City shares with 109 agencies the chief would not name for the council. Atstupenas says searches should "be anchored to a case or incident number, and technically enforced where the platform allows." OKC does not require one. And on audits he draws the distinction this city's entire records fight turns on: "An officer who knows the logs are read behaves differently from one who knows they exist." Oklahoma City has an audit log. Residents have been denied it three times.

The magazine also could not confirm Flock's accuracy math. The company states on its website that of every million vehicle alerts, nine are flagged inaccurate, a claim Security Management "was unable to independently verify." Jon Polly, PSP, of ProTecht Solutions Partners and immediate past chair of the ASIS Emerging Technologies Community Steering Committee, is skeptical on engineering grounds: true license plate recognition uses specialty cameras accurate up to 200 miles per hour, while Flock uses conventional surveillance cameras that are "highly dependent on lighting and weather conditions." As Polly puts it, "You'll typically see a true license plate recognition camera on those interstates or in areas where they need absolute accuracy." Los Angeles's Inspector General, the only party to actually measure, found 161 of 498 stolen-vehicle alerts were wrong. When the security industry's own association and a police association's general counsel are the ones raising these questions, the objection is no longer about privacy. It is about whether the thing works and whether anyone is checking.

Flock's CEO Is Now Asking for "Compromise." That Is What a Company Says When It Is Losing.

Garrett Langley has spent August on a media tour asking the country to split the difference. “When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they're prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” he told Fox News. On the 46 cases the Washington Post documented of officers accused of using Flock to stalk wives, girlfriends, and exes, he told CBS News “I apologize. It kills me that she went through that,” and then, in the same breath: “I don't think that Flock created police abuse. I think we're the first company to ever shine a light on it and build the tools to find it.” Read that twice. The company that built a searchable record of everywhere everyone drives is claiming credit for discovering that police misuse it.

Two details in this story matter directly to Oklahoma City. First, Flock cut its default retention from 30 days to seven and began requiring a case code before access. Those are company-wide product changes made in response to national criticism, not concessions any one city negotiated. Second, and this is the part to sit with: TechCrunch reports both changes can be overridden, with longer retention available through a setting called Evidence Mode. The ACLU's response names the problem exactly: “Whether this is a real change or just another Flock PR move, however, will depend on how its 'Evidence Mode' operates.” Oklahoma City's council was told about a retention cut and new access controls when it voted to renew on August 18. None of it is in the contract. It lives in a vendor's product settings, and the vendor has already built the switch that turns it off.

The political ground is also moving in both directions at once. Bernie Sanders posted “STOP AI MASS SURVEILLANCE. STOP FLOCK.” Three House Republicans introduced a bill barring the federal government from buying automated surveillance systems using facial recognition, biometric IDs, or license plate recognition, “including a Flock Safety camera.” That is the coalition this issue keeps building, and it is why the answer here has never been a better-supervised dragnet. Compromise is what you are offered when the other side has started losing votes. The demand has not changed: do not renew, remove the cameras, and sign no replacement vendor.

Fusion Centers Are Monitoring Anti-Flock Activists, Treating Protest Like a Threat

Public records obtained by 404 Media reveal four "law enforcement sensitive" bulletins in which state fusion centers - in Colorado, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Florida, with a summary reaching FBI headquarters - monitored anti-Flock activity on Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram and flagged the "DeFlock movement" as a threat. The bulletins conflate a small number of accounts posting camera-destruction videos with the far larger movement that maps cameras from public roads, signs petitions, and organizes lawful protests. DeFlock's founder: the project "has never called for disabling cameras... contrary to what recent law enforcement bulletins claim." To be clear, Flock is not behind the monitoring and has condemned vandalism while affirming the right to protest. But the picture is its own argument: a mass-surveillance system whose backers are now cataloging the people who oppose it, and official intelligence treating protected dissent as a security concern. Reported by Jason Koebler, building on records reporting by Dan Boguslaw.