Flock Retracts False Statement About IPVM, Explains Position

Scrutiny of Flock Safety has grown as it has expanded from a small startup to one of physical security's fastest-growing companies, fueled by $300 million in top-tier VC funding over the past few years.

Indeed, Flock has now expanded into general video surveillance, targeting schools and commercial facilities with a broader portfolio of conventional surveillance products.

In March 2024, the ACLU declared, "Communities Should Reject Surveillance Products Whose Makers Won't Allow Them to be Independently Evaluated," expanding:

One example of a company refusing to allow independent review of its product is the license plate recognition company Flock, which is pushing those surveillance devices into many American communities and tying them into a centralized national network. (We wrote more about this company in a 2022 white paper.) Flock has steadfastly refused to allow the independent security technology reporting and testing outlet IPVM to obtain one of its license plate readers for testing, though IPVM has tested all of Flock's major competitors. That doesn’t stop Flock from boasting that "Flock Safety technology is best-in-class, consistently performing above other vendors.” Claims like these are puzzling and laughable when the company doesn't appear to have enough confidence in its product to let IPVM test it.

Over the past two years, we have repeatedly offered to pay full price for Flock products, but they have consistently blocked us from purchasing.

IPVM recently released new testing / rankings on LPR; see LPR Rankings - Avigilon Alta, Axis, Genetec, Hanwha, Motorola, Rekor, Verkada.

Later the same month, a Texas Newspaper reported about Flock raising concerns about the company and its products:

In response, Flock criticized IPVM, falsely alleging that IPVM tests LPR indoors:

“They’re testing things in a Philadelphia indoor lab. Our cameras aren’t even deployed indoors,” [Flock Safety spokesperson Holly Beilin] said in a phone interview. “It’s literally just not accurate to put one of our cameras in a kind of a sterile indoor lab environment and expect that you’re going to get the same kind of results.”

Obviously, we test LPR outdoors (as shown in our various reports, previews, videos, etc.).

Later, Flock sent an email to the newspaper correcting themselves, which Flock shared with us:

Cody, I saw your story that published this morning, and I need to correct my own statement. I said over the phone that IPVM's testing is conducted in an indoor lab. Upon further investigation, I misspoke — IPVM's testing is done in Philadelphia at one point in time, but it is not an indoor lab. Our sentiment remains the same — that controlled testing, at a single point in time, does not accurately reflect the dynamic, real-world conditions on the ground in Fort Worth, where FWPD and City leaders all agree that Flock technology is consistently helping solve crimes and keep neighborhoods safe.

We have never done testing in Philadelphia. More importantly, we test "dynamic, real-world conditions" with different light conditions, angles, speeds, weather conditions, etc.

The newspaper added an editor's note up top to flag the error:

Flock's CMO Dee Anna McPherson provided me with the following statement that they asked, and we are sharing, in full:

Flock Safety is not a camera provider. Our business encompasses a comprehensive, citywide approach to public safety, not just a single LPR. Testing pixels and camera resolution is simply not a comprehensive and holistic reflection of Flock’s platform.

Unlike any other vendor, Flock’s devices, like LPR and gunshot detection sensors, work together, and pair with machine learning software that learns and improves over time, adapting to any environment. The FlockOS platform brings police and community-owned cameras into one place — all of this together delivers a broader picture of a crime scene, true situational awareness for officer, citizen, and community safety.

And, because agencies and communities can share access to devices, you gain the added benefit of the broader network, which has proven time and time again to be critical to solving the most urgent and complex crimes.

In other words, it’s not just about a picture of a license plate. It’s in a dynamic environment — when patrol officers, dispatch, and detectives are working together to tackle a critical emergency or piece together a crime scene — that you can fully take advantage of the Flock solution. The conditions that we are referring to are the real-life conditions that Flock users face every day.

IPVM tests various analytics technologies (from LPR to facial recognition to appearance search to metal detectors, etc.) far beyond "pixels and camera resolutions," examining accuracy and problems across various real-world conditions. Flock knows this from reading our testing.

Flock would not respond when we asked if they would allow us to test in collaboration with an agency or community.

Broader Concerns - Private Entities Controlling Public Security

Our broader concern, which reflects the ACLU's as well, is that mega-corporations are increasingly controlling public safety services, and they are dictating who can and cannot access that technology, even when entities like us ask to pay full price.

How Flock works or does not work, how Flock compares to other providers, and what problems or risks Flock poses to the public are something that these technology corporations should not be able to restrict and dictate.